Computerized transaction bargaining system and method

ABSTRACT

A method and system for automated bargaining by testing non-equal values in rounds for satisfaction of a condition. If the condition is not satisfied in the normal rounds, power round values may be tested for satisfaction of a power round condition. If, in any round, the condition is satisfied, a binding bargained payment is calculated.

The present application is a continuation-in-part of Ser. No. 09/370,394filed Aug. 6, 1999, now U.S. Pat. No. 6,954,741, which in turn is acontinuation-in-part of application Ser. No. 09/130,154 filed Aug. 6,1998, which is now U.S. Pat. No. 6,330,551.

FIELD OF THE INVENTION

This invention relates generally to bargaining and more particularly toon-line automated bargaining among opposite parties in a confidentialenvironment.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

For those not savvy in sales tactics and persuasion, bargaining is, tomany, at best a hassle. The bargaining process discourages manypotential buyers and sellers from engaging in transactions that require“haggling”. Evidence of this is the proliferation of advertisements for“no-hassle pricing” in industries which traditionally use the bargainingprocess, such as automobile sales.

Even for those who are not adverse to bargaining, there is no system ormethod for engaging in a bargained transaction in an automatedenvironment. In on-line systems, there are “reverse auctions”, such asthe process established by Priceline®, and there are many onlineauctions such as E-bay®. There are, however, no systems devoted to theprocess of multi-round automated bargaining to efficiently reach thebest price in a given transaction. As such, parties to a transaction donot get the best price or a transaction fails because no price isacceptable to one or both of the parties in the transaction.

What is needed is a system that allows parties to engage in bargainingfor the best price in a given transaction and without the impediments ofparty discomfort. The present invention is based on the premise that abargained transaction allows parties on opposite sides of a transactionto reach a price most acceptable to both. Additionally, those who areadverse to “haggling for price” need a system to engage in a bargainedtransaction without the discomfort traditionally associated with suchbargaining. The invention is also based on the understanding that manymore market transactions would be consummated if there were a systemwhich opposed parties to find a price acceptable to both.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

In general, in a first aspect, the invention features a transactionbargaining method. The method involves testing pairs of non-equalvalues, submitted by two opposite parties for a transaction, forsatisfaction of a condition. If the condition is not satisfied, themethod further involves testing a pair of non-equal power round values,one from each of the two opposite parties for the transaction, forsatisfaction of a power round condition. The method further involvescalculating a binding bargained payment, when the condition is satisfiedby the a pair of the non-equal values. The binding bargained payment isan amount at least equal to a lower of the pair of the non-equal values.

In general, in a second aspect, the invention features a transactionbargaining method. The method involves receiving values, submitted bytwo opposite parties for a transaction. At least one of the values issubmitted following a communication of a facilitating message regardingthe transaction, conveyed from a facilitator to at least one of the twoopposite parties. The method further involves testing the pairs ofnon-equal values for satisfaction of a condition, and calculating abinding bargained payment, when the condition is satisfied by a pair ofthe non-equal values. The binding bargained payment is an amount atleast equal to a lower of the pair of the non-equal values.

In general, in a third aspect, the invention features a bargainingmethod for resolving a transaction between two opposite parties. Themethod involves testing pairs of non-equal values, submitted by the twoopposite parties for the transaction, for satisfaction of a condition.The method further involves calculating a binding bargained payment,when the condition is satisfied by a pair of the non-equal values. Thebinding bargained payment incorporates a windfall adjustment, when oneof the parties is a transaction entry initiator for the transaction, inan amount at least equal to a lower of the pair of the non-equal valuesadjusted by either a positive or negative windfall differential amount.

In general, in a fourth aspect, the invention features a bargainingmethod for resolving a transaction between two opposite parties. Themethod involves testing pairs of non-equal values, submitted by the twoopposite parties for the transaction, for satisfaction of a condition.The method further involves calculating a binding bargained payment,when the condition is satisfied by a pair of the non-equal values, of anamount at least equal to a lower of the pair of the non-equal values,and initiating an on-line transfer of funds between the parties for theamount.

In general, in a fifth aspect, the invention features a bargainingmethod for resolving a transaction between two opposite parties. Themethod involves testing pairs of non-equal values, submitted by the twoopposite parties for the transaction, for satisfaction of a condition.The method further involves calculating a binding bargained payment,when the condition is satisfied by a pair of the non-equal values, of anamount at least equal to a lower of the pair of the non-equal values.The method further involves automatically, when the condition issatisfied, generating a agreement document for the transaction.

In general, in a sixth aspect, the invention features systems whichoperate according to the disclosed techniques via an on-line interface.

Particular embodiments of the invention may feature one or more of thefollowing advantages: lower cost for each party from initiation throughbargaining; an increased probability of agreement for some transactions;encouragement that the transaction may reach agreement; some indicationthat an agreement may actually be reached; higher customer satisfactionwith the transaction bargaining; attraction of a higher number oftransactions to the system; lower cost to initiators relative to hiringan agent to engage the system or file and bargain a transaction; lowercosts to parties than retail transactions; more economically efficienttransactions than those achieved in an auction or in a reverse auction;greater comfort for parties engaging the system because the legalknowledge necessary to draft a simple contract or agreement is notneeded; lower cost because an agent or attorney is not needed orminimally needed to memorialize the agreement; consolidation andsimplification of multiparty bargaining into effectively a two partybargaining; greater flexibility for parties since they control theparticular method of payment; faster receipt of proceeds from bargainedagreements; or smaller likelihood of post agreement defaults by buyersor sellers, and real-time, instantaneous bargaining.

Particular embodiments of systems incorporating the invention mayfeature one or more of the following additional advantages: the abilityfor individuals to directly contact and engage in a bargainedtransaction; the ability to receive an immediate or direct crediting,transfer or initiation of a transfer of the value arrived at through thebargaining process; or the ability to receive a windfall adjustment if abargaining results in an agreement by being an initiator.

The above advantages and features are of representative embodimentsonly, and are presented only to assist in understanding the invention.It should be understood that they are not to be considered limitationson the invention as defined by the transactions, or limitations onequivalents to the claims. For instance, some pairs of these advantagesare mutually contradictory, in that they cannot be simultaneouslypresent in a single embodiment. Similarly, some advantages areapplicable to one aspect of the invention, and inapplicable to others.Thus, this summary of features and advantages should not be considereddispositive in determining equivalence. Additional features andadvantages of the invention will become apparent in the description,from the drawings, and from the claims.

It is an object of this invention to provide computer executable methodfor bargaining, operative to control a computer and stored on at leastone computer readable medium. The method when executed comprises: a)receiving a plurality of offers from a first party for a transaction; b)receiving a plurality of counter-offers from a second party for thetransaction; c) preventing disclosure of the offers to the second party,and preventing disclosure of the counter-offers to the first party; d)calculating differences between the offers and the counter-offers inrounds, each of the differences being calculated in a round using oneoffer and one counter-offer, the one offer and the one counter-offerbeing unequal in value; e) determining whether any of the differencesfall within at least one predetermined criterion; f) if any of thedifferences fall within the at least one predetermined criterion,transmitting a message to the first party and the second party that thetransaction is resolved; and g) if the differences do not fall withinthe at least one predetermined criterion, transmitting a message thatthe transaction has not been resolved. Further provided is the methodwherein the one offer is received before the one counter-offer. Stillfurther provided is the method wherein the one offer is received afterthe one counter-offer. The method further comprises limiting theplurality of counter-offers which may be received to a maximum of three.Also included in the method is allowing one of the parties to specify amaximum number of rounds. Further provided is the method wherein d), e),f) and g) are performed after receiving less than a maximum specifiednumber of the plurality of offers. Finally, the method wherein allcounter-offers are received before any of the offers are received isalso provided.

Another object of the invention is to provide an automated method ofbargaining between at least two parties using monetary offers andcounter-offers, comprising: receiving an engagement request from a firstparty to engage an automated bargaining system, for a transaction, andto be bound by a resolution of the transaction transmitted from theautomated bargaining system; and receiving an engagement indication froma second party to engage the automated bargaining system for thetransaction.

The method provides receiving a series of at least three monetary offersfrom the first party; receiving a series of at least threecounter-offers from the second party; maintaining inaccessibility of themonetary offers from the second party; and maintaining inaccessibilityof the settlements offers from the first party. The method progresses tocomparing a first offer of the series of monetary offers with a firstcounter-offer in a first round to determine if a first differencebetween the first monetary offer and the first counter-offer is within apredetermined guideline. If, in the first round, the first difference iswithin the predetermined guideline, transmitting a successful agreementnotification to the first party and the second party; if, in the firstround, the first difference is not within the predetermined guideline,the method progresses to comparing a second offer of the series ofmonetary offers with a second counter-offer in a second round todetermine if a second difference between the second monetary offer andthe second counter-offer is within the predetermined guideline. If, inthe second round, the second difference is within the predeterminedguideline, transmitting a successful agreement notification to the firstparty and the second party.

If, in the second round, the second difference is not within thepredetermined guideline, the method progresses to comparing a thirdoffer of the series monetary offers with a third counter-offer in athird round to determine if a third difference between the thirdmonetary offer and the third counter-offer is within the predeterminedguideline and if, in the third round, the third difference is within thepredetermined guideline, transmitting a successful agreementnotification to the first party and the second party.

If, in all of the first, second and third rounds, the first, second andthird differences are not within the predetermined guideline, the methodincludes transmitting an unsuccessful agreement signal to said firstparty and said second party. If in any round, the successful agreementnotification is transmitted, the method further comprises generating abargained value notification includes a bargained agreement amount to bepaid to the first party by the second party.

The method also further comprises calculating the bargained agreementamount using at least the monetary offer from the round in which thesuccessful agreement notification is transmitted. Further provided isthe method wherein the calculating also uses the counter-offer. If, inany of the first, second or third rounds, the successful agreementnotification is transmitted, the method further comprises calculating apayment value for the transaction from a pair of values used in theround for which the successful agreement notification is transmitted;and storing the payment value in an engaging party accessible database.If in the first round the first difference is not within thepredetermined guideline, the method further comprises rendering thefirst monetary offer and the first counter-offer unavailable to theautomated bargaining system for the second round. If in the second roundthe second difference is not within the predetermined guideline, themethod further comprises: rendering the second monetary offer and thesecond counter-offer unavailable to the automated bargaining system forthe third round. Further provided is the method wherein, if in the thirdround the third difference is not within the predetermined guideline,the method further comprises rendering the third monetary offer and thethird counter-offer unavailable to the automated bargaining system.

Also included is the method wherein the bargained agreement amount is amedian of one offer and one counter-offer, or, the bargained agreementamount is equal to an amount specified by one offer. Further provided isthe method of wherein the predetermined guideline is that a singlecounter-offer and a single offer differ from each other by less than afixed amount. Also included is the method wherein the fixed amount is acalculated amount representing a percentage of one of the singlecounter-offer or the single offer. Further provided is the methodwherein the specified condition is that a single counter-offer is withina predetermined percentage of a single offer. The predeterminedpercentage of the method may be 70% or 80%. Also provided is the methodwherein one of the series of three monetary offers is received beforeone of the series of three counter-offers. Further provided is themethod of wherein one of the series of three counter-offers is receivedbefore one of the series of three monetary offers.

Another object of the invention is to provide a bargaining method forresolving a transaction between two opposite parties in rounds, themethod comprising: testing a pair of non-equal values in one of at leasttwo rounds, one value in the pair submitted by one of the two oppositeparties for the transaction; and calculating a binding bargained paymentof an amount at least equal to a lower of the pair of the non-equalvalues, when an agreement determination algorithm used in the testing issatisfied by the pair of the non-equal values. The method furthercomprises limiting the bargained payment to the greater of the pair ofnon-equal values. The method still further comprises receiving at leasta value of the pair of non-equal values on a weekend day. The methodalso comprises receiving at least a value of the pair of non-equalvalues at a time other than between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. on a weekday.Finally, the method further comprises storing the amount correlated tocase specific information in a database.

Another object of the invention is to provide a method of operating abargaining system comprising: receiving a plurality of values from eachof a first and second party to a dispute, at least one of the pluralityof values having been received via an internet connection; matching, ona one for one basis, values from the first party and values from thesecond party to create a plurality of pairs without disclosing eitherthe first party's values to the second party or the second party'svalues to the first party; analyzing pairs in accordance with a presetformula such that if, when analyzed, a pair meets at least one specifiedcriterion, the system will report to the first and second parties thatan agreement is reached. When at least one specified criterion is met,the method further comprises calculating a bargain value using at leasta part of the pair. Also included is the method wherein the calculatingcomprises: determining a median value for the pair. The method furthercomprises allowing the first party to make a selection of the presetformula. The method further comprises, prior to the receiving, requiringone of the first or second parties to make a selection of the presetformula; and requiring another of the first or second parties to agreeto the selection. Also included in the method is receiving a sponsoridentification number for the bargain and transaction descriptioninformation for the bargain. The method also further includes: receivinginformation representing a geographical information for the bargain.

Another object of the invention is to provide a method comprising:registering a first entity in an automated bargaining system withrespect to a bargain negotiation involving a transaction; followingregistration, receiving a transaction identifier and at least twomonetary submissions from the first entity; associating at least oneproposed bargained agreement amount submitted by a second entity withrespect to the transaction with at least one of the at least twomonetary submissions; processing a proposed bargained agreement amountand one of the at least two monetary submissions in accordance with aspecified algorithm to obtain a result; and notifying the first entitythat an agreement of the transaction has been reached and of a paymentamount, when the result meets a criterion agreed to by the first entity,without ever informing the first entity of the at least one proposedbargained agreement amount The method of further comprises: permanentlydiscarding at least one proposed bargained agreement amount and the oneof the at least two monetary submissions when the settlement has beenreached. The method further comprises: storing transaction relatedinformation for the bargain negotiation and the payment amount in theautomated bargaining system for tabulation.

Another object of the invention is to provide a bargaining methodcomprising receiving offers and counter-offers with respect to atransaction, each of the offers having been received via a passwordprotected communication linkage and having an associated sequencenumber, and each of the offers having an associated sequence number;matching offers against counter-offers based upon a correspondencebetween the sequence numbers; testing matched offers and counter-offersagainst an algorithm; generating a result in response to a testing of anoffer and a offer; and automatically reporting the result, withoutdisclosing the offer or counter-offer. Further provided is the methodwherein, when the result is no bargain, the method further comprisesdiscarding the offer and the counter-offer. Further provided is themethod wherein, when the result is an agreement, the method furthercomprises calculating a bargained agreement amount according to apreestablished formula; and reporting the bargained agreement amount.The method still further comprises obtaining an agreement from an entityto be paid to participate in an indirect bargain negotiation using anon-line bargaining system and, when the result indicates an agreement,to be legally bound to agree to the transaction for an amount specifiedby the on-line bargaining system. The method also further comprisesobtaining an agreement from a sponsor to participate in an indirectbargain negotiation, generating an exposure amount using an offersubmitted by the sponsor, and informing the sponsor of the exposureamount. The method further comprises generating a potential bargain gainamount using a offer; and informing the entity to be paid of the bargaingain amount.

Another object of the invention is to provide a method comprisingagreeing to at least one criterion which, when applied by a bargainingsystem to values and satisfied, will result in an agreement of atransaction against a party for a payment amount specified by thebargaining system, the payment amount being derived from at least one ofthe values; submitting a plurality of monetary values to the bargainingsystem via a security protected on line interface, which will beanalyzed by the bargaining system using the at least one criterionwithout revealing any of the monetary values to the party; receiving anindication that the at least one criterion is satisfied by an unrevealedvalue from the party and at least one of the plurality of monetaryvalues; and receiving a notification of the payment amount for thetransaction. Further provided is the method wherein, prior to receivingthe indication, the method includes receiving a message that the atleast one criterion has not been satisfied for one unrevealed value forthe party and one monetary value. Further provided is the method whereinthe payment amount is at least one of the plurality of monetary values.Further provided is the method wherein the payment amount is greaterthan at least one of the plurality of monetary values. The method stillfurther includes logging in to the bargaining system through theinternet. The method may also include providing transaction specificidentification information. Providing agent contact information for thetransaction is also included in the method. The method further includestabulating the transaction specific information. The method furtherincludes accessing the bargaining system using a web browser. Alsoincluded in the method is submitting a plurality of cases to thebargaining system, the transaction relating to one of the plurality ofcases.

Another object of the invention is to provide a method comprising steps,stored in an automated bargaining system including a processor andstorage, for bargaining, the method comprising a step of executing afirst program module, written in a markup language, for receiving valuessubmitted by a party via the internet, the values representing a seriesof proposed amounts for which a transaction would be bargained; a stepof executing a program object, written in an object oriented programminglanguage, for sequentially comparing individual proposed amounts of theseries of proposed amounts against individual proposed counter amountsof a series of proposed counter amounts, all of the proposed counteramounts being unavailable to the party, in order to determine if adifference between and of the sequentially compared individual proposedamounts and counter amounts is within a specified range and forgenerating an agreement indication if the difference is within thespecified range; and a step of executing a second program module forinforming the party that the transaction is bargained by a payment of acalculated amount. The method further includes a step for calculating abargained agreement amount according to a specified formula using anindividual proposed amount as an input for the specified formula forspecifying a payment to be made in bargaining the transaction. Themethod still further includes a step for calculating a bargainedagreement amount according to a specified formula using an individualproposed counter amount as an input for the specified formula forspecifying a payment to be made in bargaining the transaction. Alsoincluded in the method is a step for calculating a bargained agreementamount according to a specified formula using both an individualproposed amount and an individual proposed counter amount as an inputfor the specified formula for specifying a payment to be made inbargaining the transaction. The method still further includes a step forlogging the party in. The method further includes a step for collectingand processing settlement data using the processor. Finally, the methodfurther includes a step for checking administration authorization toenable an administrator to add a sponsor into the automated bargainingsystem.

Another object of the invention is to provide a method comprising:receiving a submission of a transaction from a sponsor; receiving anagreement to at least one criterion which, if satisfied, would result ina binding agreement; generating a message for communication to arepresentative of a the entity to be paid involved in the transactionwhich invites the representative to participate in an automatedbargaining negotiation for the transaction; receiving a responsiveagreement from the representative to participate and to be bound by theautomated bargaining negotiation, if at least one criterion is satisfiedby offers submitted by the representative and correlated counter-offerssubmitted by the sponsor; receiving at least two offers submitted by therepresentative and a counter-offer submitted by the sponsor, within aspecified limited time period; comparing one of the offers and thecounter-offer in a round of at least two rounds to determine if the atleast one criterion is satisfied; and if the at least one criterion issatisfied, generating an indication that the transaction is bargainedfor a payment amount. The method further comprises: requiring entry ofan identification number prior to receiving the offer and thecounter-offer. The method further comprises storing the payment amountfor future retrieval. The method still further comprises calculating thepayment amount as a median of the one offer and the counter-offer. Themethod further comprises calculating the payment amount as a valuebetween the offer and the counter-offer.

Another object of the invention is to provide a method comprisingreceiving first signals including data representing a series of monetaryamounts for a transaction from a first entity; preparing the firstsignals for automated testing against an algorithm by a bargainingsystem in conjunction with information from a second entity, the secondentity being opposite to the first entity with respect to thetransaction; receiving a response signal indicating that a test of oneof the series of monetary amounts caused an agreement condition in thebargaining system; forwarding a message including data representing abargained agreement amount, in response to the agreement condition, forultimate delivery to the first entity. The method further includesreceiving second signals including the information from the secondentity, the information having data representing at least one proposedbargained agreement amount for the transaction. Further provided is themethod wherein the first entity is one of an entity to be paid, or arepresentative of the entity to be paid. The method further includesforwarding cookie data sent by the bargaining system for storage on ahard drive associated with either the first or second entity usable bythe bargaining system to track usage by the first or second entity.Further included in the method is receiving third signals from thebargaining system for forwarding to a computer associated with eitherthe first or the second entity which, when received, would cause thecomputer to retrieve the cookie data from the hard drive and send it tothe bargaining system.

Another object of the invention is to provide a method of automatedon-line bargaining comprising maintaining an interface to the internetthrough which an entity to be paid can submit offers for a transactionto a bargaining system and receive indications therefrom such that, whenthe entity to be paid submits multiple offers via the interface to thebargaining system and the bargaining system pairs the multiple offerswith counter-offers of agreement for the transaction on a one-to-onebasis, a comparison will be performed in accordance with at least onecriterion and the entity to be paid will be provided with either apositive or negative indication, via the interface, as to whether or notthe at least one criterion is satisfied for a pair. The method furthercomprises: forwarding received information, via the interface, fordisplay to the entity to be paid including a bargain value supplied bythe bargaining system calculated when the at least one criterion issatisfied. The method still further comprises hosting the bargainingsystem. Further comprised by the method is storing a processorexecutable program which, when executed, performs the comparison andprovides the entity to be paid with the either positive or negativeindication for the transaction.

Another object of the invention is to provide a system comprising: afirst value, selected from at least two values submitted on line by afirst entity; a second value submitted on line by a second entity, thefirst value being inaccessible to the second entity and the second valuebeing inaccessible to the first entity, the first value and the secondvalue being different in magnitude from each other; a proxy includes aninput, an output and a computer executable program, the program beingstructured to, when executing, accept a pair of values from oppositeentities via the input and return a result indicator to the proxy basedupon a mathematical comparison of the pair of values in a round of atleast two rounds, the program being further structured to provide apayment value to at least one of the opposite entities via the outputwhen the result indicator indicates that at least one predeterminedcriterion is satisfied for one of the at least two rounds.

The system further includes a processor accessible storage configured totemporarily store the first and second values for retrieval by the proxyvia the input. Further provided is the system wherein the computerexecutable program includes a plurality of modules, one of which isprogrammed in an object oriented programming language, such asJAVAScript, and another of which is programmed in a markup language suchas ColdFusion Markup Language or Hyper Text Markup Language (HTML).

Further provided is the system wherein, when the program is executed andthe result indicator indicates that the at least one predeterminedcriterion is not satisfied, the proxy discards the pair of values. Alsoprovided is the system wherein, when the program is executed and theresult indicator indicates that the at least one predetermined criterionis satisfied, the proxy calculates the payment value from the pair ofvalues and then discards the pair of values. Further provided is thesystem wherein the first value is an offer made by a sponsor and thesecond value is a offer made by the entity to be paid. The systemfurther includes an entity accessible detail log including a correlationof payment values and transaction specific information.

Also provided is the system wherein the transaction specific informationincludes data indicative of a geographic area. The system furtherincludes proxy accessible storage into which the proxy can store thepayment value and data representing transaction specific informationwhen the result indicator indicates that the at least one predeterminedcriterion is satisfied.

Further provided is the system wherein the pair of values is the firstand second values, the at least one predetermined criterion is satisfiedand the payment value is the median of the first and second values.Still further provided is the system wherein the pair of values is thefirst and second values, the at least one predetermined criterion issatisfied and the payment value is the greater of the first and secondvalues. The system wherein the at least one predetermined criterion isthat the pair of values must be within a fixed percentage of each otheris also provided. The system further includes a predetermined overrideamount which will be compared to a differential between the pair ofvalues if the result indicator indicates that the at least onepredetermined criterion is not satisfied and, if the differential isless than the predetermined override amount, will cause the proxy toprovide the payment value for the transaction to at least one oppositeentity even though the at least one predetermined criterion was notsatisfied. Further provided is the system wherein the pair of values isthe first and second values, the at least one predetermined criterion issatisfied and the payment value is the median of the first and secondvalues. Further provided is the system wherein the pair of values is thefirst and second values, the at least one predetermined criterion issatisfied and the payment value is the greater of the first and secondvalues. Still further provided is the system wherein the pair of valuesis the first and second values, the at least one predetermined criterionis satisfied and the payment value is a function of the first and secondvalues. The system wherein the at least one predetermined criterion is afixed spread value is also provided. Also provided is the system whereinthe payment value is of a magnitude between one of the values in thepair of values and another of the values in the pair of values.

The system further includes a program execution limit which provides alimit on a number of times the proxy will accept the pair of values.Further provided is the system wherein, the predetermined action is adiscarding of the at least one of the first or second values. The systemwherein the first and second values are withdrawable and thepredetermined action prevents a withdrawal of one of the first or secondvalues is also provided.

The system further includes an entity accessible detail log including acorrelation of payment values and transaction specific information. Theentity accessible detail log can be written in a markup language. Thesystem also can includes an exposure calculator. The exposure calculatorcan be written in an object oriented programming language such asJAVAScript.

Still further provided is the system wherein the first value is one of aplurality of sequentially submitted first values and the second value isone of a plurality of sequentially submitted second values, all of thesequentially submitted values being inaccessible to the entity that didnot submit them, and wherein the program is further structured toutilize another of the plurality of sequentially submitted first values,specified by the first entity, in place of the first value and anotherof the plurality of sequentially submitted second values, specified bythe second entity, in place of the second value when the resultindicator indicates that the at least one predetermined criterion is notsatisfied for the first and second values. Also provided is the systemwherein each of the plurality of first values is submitted by the firstentity according to a specified order. The system further includes aprogram execution limit which provides a limit on a number of times—twoor three, for example, that the proxy will accept the pair of values.120.

The system still further includes a payment calculator which, when theat least one predetermined criterion has been satisfied, will calculate,in accordance with a formula, a monetary amount to be paid by one entityto the other to settle the transaction. Further provided is the systemwherein the formula is a median of the pair of values which caused theat least one predetermined criterion to be satisfied. Further providedis the system wherein the formula is the greater of the pair of valueswhich caused the at least one predetermined criterion to be satisfied.

The system further includes an entity searchable database includes datarelating to bargained transactions. Further provided is the systemwherein the data includes geographic information for each bargainedtransaction. Further provided is the system wherein the data includes amonetary amount for each bargained transaction. Further provided is thesystem wherein the system further includes a communication link overwhich the entity searchable database can be accessed by an entity priorto submitting an offer or a counter-offer. Also provided is the systemwherein the first plurality of values are offers from an entity to bepaid. Further provided is the system wherein the first value is one of aplurality of sequentially submitted first values and the second value isone of a plurality of sequentially submitted second values, all of thesequentially submitted values being inaccessible to the entity that didnot submit them, and wherein an acceptance of a pair of values by theprogram along with the returning of the result indicator constitutes around.

Another object of the invention is to provide a bargaining applicationstored on at least one computer accessible storage medium for executionby a processor comprising a plurality of modules which, when executed bythe processor: accepts and compares paired monetary values submitted bytwo entities opposite to each other with respect to a transaction,discards the paired monetary values which differ from each other by morethan a specified range, calculates a bargained agreement amount to bepaid by one entity to another entity if a pair of the monetary valuesdiffer from each other within the specified range based upon the pairand then discards the pair, and provides the bargained agreement amountfor delivery to the two entities.

Another object of the invention is to provide a method of automatedbargaining in a system with at least one central processing unitcomprising: (a) introducing into the central processing unit,information corresponding to a series of rounds of offers to satisfy atransaction received from a first party for a transaction withoutdisclosure of the offers to any parties opposite to the first party inthe dispute; (b) introducing into the central processing unit,information corresponding to a series of rounds of counter-offers toreach an agreement for the transaction received from a second party,opposite to the first party, for the transaction without disclosure ofthe offers to any parties opposite to the second party in the dispute;(c) steps (a) and (b) occurring in any order; (d) comparing theinformation corresponding to the series of offers and the series ofcounter-offers on a round-by-round basis in accordance withpreestablished conditions; (e) determining, using the central processingunit, if an agreement of the transaction is caused by a offer and acounter-offer in a round by meeting the preestablished conditions; (f)if the offer and the counter-offer in the round cause the agreement,calculating a bargained payment equal to one of: (i) a first amount,calculated in accordance with a first preestablished formula, of theoffer in the round is less than the counter-offer and within apreestablished percentage of the offer in the same round, or (ii) theoffer, if the offer in the round is the same as or greater than thecounter-offer, or (iii) a second amount, calculated in accordance with asecond preestablished formula, if the offer is not within thepreestablished percentage of the offer in all individual rounds but thedifference between a particular counter-offer and a corresponding offeris less than a preestablished amount; (g) permanently deleting theseries of offers and the series of counter-offers when either none ofthe series of offers and series of counter-offers meet thepreestablished conditions of the bargained payment has been calculated;and (h) communicating either failure to agree message, when none of theseries of counter-offers and series of offers meet the preestablishedconditions and every difference between individual unsuccessful offersand corresponding counter-offers is greater that a preestablishedamount, or an agreement message includes the bargained payment, when thepreestablished conditions are met or the offer is not within thepreestablished percentage of the counter-offer in all rounds but thedifference between the particular offer and the correspondingcounter-offer is less than the preestablished amount.

Another object of the invention is to provide a system for automatedbargaining comprises: a processor for processing offers andcounter-offers; means for introducing to the processor, via acommunications linkage, information identifying a transaction to bebargained, a series of offers to satisfy a transaction made by or onbehalf of a person involved in the bargain transaction, and a series ofcounter-offers to reach an agreement for the transaction by an entityopposite to the person for the transaction. In this embodiment of thesystem is memory means, accessible by the processor, for storing theinformation identifying the transaction and for temporarily storing theseries of offers to satisfy the transaction and the series ofcounter-offers to reach an agreement for the transaction for use by theprocessor in a series of rounds without disclosure of the series ofoffers to the opposite entity or series of offers to the person. Thereare also embodied in the system comparison means, in communicatingrelationship with the processor, for receiving and comparing one of theseries of offers and one of the series of counter-offers, against eachother on a round-by-round basis, in accordance with preestablishedconditions until either all of the series of offers and series ofcounter-offers have been exhausted or an agreement is indicated for aoffer and a counter-offer in a round, such that, if the agreement isindicated the transaction is agreed upon for: (a) an amount, inaccordance with a first preestablished formula, if the offer in theround in which the preestablished condition is met is less than thecounter-offer and within a preestablished percentage of the offer in theround, (b) the offer, if the offer in any round is the same as orgreater than the counter-offer, and (c) an amount in accordance with asecond preestablished formula, if the offer is not within thepreestablished condition in all rounds but the difference between aparticular offer and a corresponding counter-offer is less than apreestablished amount. Also embodied are means for permanentlyinhibiting a reuse of an unsuccessful offer, or unsuccessfulcounter-offer, by the comparison means in a subsequent round; and meansfor communicating a result of the comparison to the person and theentity.

The system further comprises means for accessing actual agreements fromother bargained transactions. Further provided is the system wherein thecommunication linkage is an internet connection. Also provided is thesystem wherein the communication linkage is a voice connection. Stillfurther provided is the system wherein the series of offers to reach anagreement for the transaction comprise three offers. The system furthercomprises means for generating voice messages through a telephonelinkage for guiding a user in a use of the system. The system stillfurther comprises security means for preventing an access of the systemuntil provision to the system of at least one of: a) an identificationnumber identifying the transaction, b) a security code corresponding tothe transaction, or c) an administrator code for the person or theentity.

The system further comprises time keeping means for associating an entrytime with at least a first of the series of offers to satisfy thetransaction and at least a first of the series of counter-offers toreach an agreement for the transaction. Also provided is the systemwherein all of the series of offers and the series of counter-offers arereceived by the system at different times.

Another object of the invention is to provide a computerized system forautomated bargaining through a communications linkage for communicatingand processing a series of offers to satisfy a transaction made by or onbehalf of a person involved in a bargain negotiation with at least onother person and a series of counter-offers to reach an agreement forthe transaction through at least one central processing unit includesoperating system software for controlling the central processing unit,means for introducing information into the central processing unitcorresponding to the identification of the transaction and the personsinvolved in the transaction, and memory means for storing theinformation corresponding to the identification of the transaction andthe persons involved in the transaction. Also embodied by the system aremeans for introducing by or on behalf of a first person involved in thetransaction against whom a transaction is made information into thecentral processing unit corresponding to a series of rounds to reach anagreement for a transaction without disclosure of the offers to otherpersons involved in the transaction, means for introducing by or onbehalf of a second person involved in the transaction information intothe central processing unit corresponding to a series of rounds ofcounter-offers to satisfy the transaction without disclosure of thecounter-offers to other persons involved in the transaction. Alsoembodied are comparison means for comparing the informationcorresponding to the series of offers and the series of counter-offerson a round-by-round basis in accordance with preestablished conditionsincludes (a) that the transaction is agreed upon for an amount inaccordance with a first preestablished formula if the offer in any roundis less than the counter-offer and within a preestablished percentage ofthe offer in the same round; (b) that the transaction is agreed upon forthe offer amount if the offer in any round is the same as or greaterthan the counter-offer; and (c) that the transaction is not agreed uponif the counter-offer is not within the preestablished percentage of theoffer in all rounds unless the difference between the offer andcounter-offer is less than a preestablished amount in which case thetransaction is settled for an amount, in accordance with a secondpreestablished formula. There are also embodied means for permanentlydeleting the offer and the counter-offer in each round that does notresult in an agreement upon comparison of the offer and thecounter-offer in said round based upon said preestablished conditions,and means for communicating to the first and second persons orrepresentatives thereof the results of the comparison.

A computerized system as defined further comprises means for accessingactual agreements generated by the system in other bargainedtransactions. Further provided is a computerized system as definedwherein said persons communicate via the Internet to said centralprocessing unit. Still further provided is a computerized system asdefined wherein said persons communicate via telephone to said centralprocessing unit. Also provided is a computerized system as definedwherein the central processing unit has received informationcorresponding to three counter-offers.

The computerized system as defined comprises means for generating voicemessages to a person communicating with the system through a touch-toneor cell phone linkage to guide the person in the use of the system. Thesystem also comprises security means whereby the system is accessibleonly upon entry of an identification number identifying the transaction,a security code corresponding to the transaction, and a user securitycode corresponding to the transaction and identifying the person orrepresentative thereof who is making the offer or counter-offer. Thecomputerized system as defined comprises time keeping means to recordthe introduction of the information corresponding to the offers orcounter-offers over a period of time. Introduction of informationcorresponding to offers or counter-offers may be made in a plurality ofcommunications with the system over a period of time. Further providedis the system wherein the markup language is Hyper Text Markup Language(HTML).

A method comprises: receiving a submission of a transaction to bebargained from a sponsor; receiving an agreement to at least onecriterion which, if satisfied, would result in a binding agreement ofthe transaction; generating a message for communication to arepresentative of an entity to be paid involved in the transaction whichinvites the representative to participate in an automated bargainingnegotiation for the transaction; receiving a responsive agreement fromthe representative to participate and to be bound by the automatedbargaining negotiation, if the at least on criterion is satisfied byoffers submitted by the representative and correlated counter-offerssubmitted by the sponsor; receiving an offer submitted by therepresentative and at least two counter-offers submitted by the sponsor,within a specified limited time period; comparing the offer and one ofthe counter-offers in a round of at least two rounds to determine if theat least one criterion is satisfied; and if the at least one criterionis satisfied, generating an indication that the transaction is agreedupon for a payment amount. The method further comprises: requiring entryof a identification number prior to receiving the offer and thecounter-offer. The method still further comprises: storing the paymentamount for future retrieval. According to the method the payment amountcan be calculated as a median of offer and the counter-offer.

Another object of the invention is to provide a system comprising: afirst value, submitted on line by a first entity; a second value,selected from at least two values submitted on line by a second entity,the first and second entities being opposite to each other with respectto a transaction, the first value being inaccessible to the secondentity and the second value being inaccessible to the first entity, thefirst value and the second value being different in magnitude from eachother. A proxy includes an input, an output and a computer executableprogram, the program being structured to, when executing, accept a pairof values from opposite entities via the input and return a resultindicator to the proxy based upon a mathematical comparison of the pairof values in a round of at least two rounds. The program is furtherstructured to provide a payment value for the transaction to at leastone of the opposite entities via the output when the result indicatorindicates that at least one predetermined criterion is satisfied for oneof the at least two rounds. The system still further includes processoraccessible storage configured to temporarily store the first and secondvalues for retrieval by the proxy via the input. Further provided is thesystem wherein the computer executable program including a plurality ofmodules, one of which is programmed in an object oriented programminglanguage and another of which is programmed in a markup language.Further provided is the system wherein the object oriented programminglanguage includes JAVAScript. Also provided is the system wherein themarkup language is ColdFusion Markup Language or Hyper Text MarkupLanguage (HTML).

The system wherein, when the program is executed and the resultindicator indicates that the at least one predetermined criterion is notsatisfied, the proxy discards the pair of values is also provided. Sotoo is the system wherein, when the program is executed and the resultindicator indicates that the at least one predetermined criterion issatisfied, the proxy calculates the payment value from the pair ofvalues and then discards the pair of values. Also provided is the systemwherein the first value is an offer made by a sponsor and the secondvalue is a counter-offer made by a the entity to be paid.

The system further includes an entity accessible detail log includes acorrelation of payment values and transaction specific information.Further provided is the system wherein the transaction specificinformation includes data indicative of a geographic area. The systemfurther includes proxy accessible storage into which the proxy can storethe payment value and data representing transaction specific informationwhen the result indicator indicates that the at least one predeterminedcriterion is satisfied. Further provided is the system wherein the pairof values is the first and second values, the at least one predeterminedcriterion is satisfied and the payment value is the median of the firstand second values. Still further provided is the system wherein the pairof values is the first and second values, the at least one predeterminedcriterion is satisfied and the payment value is the greater of the firstand second values. The at least one predetermined criterion can be thatthe pair of values must be within a fixed percentage of each other.

The system further includes a predetermined override amount which willbe compared to a differential between the pair of values if the resultindicator indicates that the at least one predetermined criterion is notsatisfied and, if the differential is less than the predeterminedoverride amount, will cause the proxy to provide the payment value forthe transaction to at least one opposite entity even though the at leastone predetermined criterion was not satisfied. Further provided is thesystem wherein the pair of values is the first and second values, the atleast one predetermined criterion is satisfied and the payment value isthe median of the first and second values. Also provided is the systemwherein the pair of values is the first and second values, the at leastone predetermined criterion is satisfied and the payment value is thegreater of the first and second values. Also provided is the systemwherein the pair of values is the first and second values, the at leastone predetermined criterion is satisfied and the payment value is afunction of the first and second values. Further provided is the systemwherein the at least one predetermined criterion is a fixed spreadvalue. Further provided is the system wherein the payment value is of amagnitude between one of the values in the pair of values and another ofthe values in the pair of values.

The system further comprises transaction specific data indicative of ageographic area. The system further includes a time indicator which,when exceeded, will cause the proxy to take a predetermined action withregard to at least one of the first or second values. Further providedis the system wherein, the predetermined action is a discarding of theat least one of the first or second values. Further provided is thesystem wherein the first and second values are withdrawable and thepredetermined action prevents a withdrawal of one of the first or secondvalues. The system further includes an entity accessible detail logincludes a correlation of payment values and transaction specificinformation. Further provided is the system wherein the entityaccessible detail log is written in a markup language. The systemfurther includes an exposure calculator which can be written in anobject oriented programming language such as JAVAScript.

Also provided is the system wherein the first value is one of aplurality of sequentially submitted first values and the second value isone of a plurality of sequentially submitted second values, all of thesequentially submitted values being inaccessible to the entity that didnot submit them, and wherein the program is further structured toutilize another of the plurality of sequentially submitted first values,specified by the first entity, in place of the first value and anotherof the plurality of sequentially submitted second values, specified bythe second entity, in place of the second value when the resultindicator indicates that the at least one predetermined criterion is notsatisfied for the first and second values. The system wherein each ofthe plurality of first values is submitted by the first entity accordingto a specified order is also provided. The system further includes aprogram execution limit which provides a limit on a number of times—twoor three, for example, that the proxy will accept the pair of values.

The system further includes a payment calculator which, when the atleast one predetermined criterion has been satisfied, will calculate, inaccordance with a formula, a monetary amount to be paid by one entity tothe other to reach an agreement for the transaction. Further provided isthe system wherein the formula is a median of the pair of values whichcaused the at least one predetermined criterion to be satisfied. Alsoprovided is the system wherein the formula is the greater of the pair ofvalues which caused the at least one predetermined criterion to besatisfied. The system further includes an entity searchable databaseincludes data relating to settled transactions. Further provided is thesystem wherein the data includes geographic information for eachbargained transaction. The system wherein the data includes a monetaryamount for each bargained transaction is also provided. Still furtherprovided is the system wherein the system further includes acommunication link over which the entity searchable database can beaccessed by an entity prior to submitting an offer or a counter-offer.

Further provided is the system wherein the first plurality of values areoffers from an entity to be paid. The system wherein the first value isone of a plurality of sequentially submitted first values and the secondvalue is one of a plurality of sequentially submitted second values, allof the sequentially submitted values being inaccessible to the entitythat did not submit them, and wherein an acceptance of a pair of valuesby the program along with the returning of the result indicatorconstitutes a round.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

The following detailed description may best be understood by referenceto the following description in conjunction with the accompanyingdrawings in which:

FIG. 1 is an overview of the computerized system usable to implement thepresent invention.

FIG. 2 is a block diagram showing how a party involved in a transactioninteracts with the computerized system of FIG. 1.

FIG. 3 is a block diagram of an example of how an embodiment prompts aperson involved in a transaction in the use of the system.

FIG. 4 is a diagram showing the program flow from a user perspective inaccordance with a preferred method for operating the system of thepresent invention via the Internet.

FIG. 5 is an overview of the computerized system including thefacilitator.

FIG. 6 is a diagram showing program flow from a system perspective for asystem including a power round option.

FIG. 7 is an overview of the computerized system including the directpayment interface option.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

A computerized system for automated bargaining accessible on-line, forexample through an Internet website via the Internet or othercommunications linkage is created for communicating and processing atransaction between two persons using a series of counter-offers tosatisfy a transaction and a series of offers. Among the broaddefinitions for “bargain” Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionarydefines bargain as: “to negotiate over the terms of a purchase,agreement, or contract”; “to come to terms”; and “to bring to a desiredlevel by bargaining; to sell or dispose of by bargaining”.

The system compares counter-offers and offers on a round-by-round basisin accordance with preestablished conditions.

An “offer” is the amount of money (or equivalent value) required by theperson having a transaction opposite another person, such as buyer orhis or her agent seeking to purchase real property, for which the personwith the transaction would be willing to reach agreement. Informationcorresponding to the amount of the offer is entered by the party, or hisor her representative, by using the numbers of a touch-tone or cellulartelephone or the keyboard of a personal computer. A “counter-offer” isthe amount of money (or suitable value) the opposite person, for examplea seller or his or her agent with real property to sell, will reachagreement the transaction. “Counter-offer” and “offer” are useddistinguish the amounts submitted by the opposite parties; it does notmatter which party makes the offer or counter-offer nor is it requiredthat an either the offer or the counter-offer precede one another.

A person involved in a transaction is anyone or any company who has atransaction against another person or against whom another person hasasserted a transaction.

The system communicates and processes the offers and the counter-offersusing at least one central processing unit by pairing offers andcounter-offers and comparing them. The computer system includesoperating system software for controlling the central processing unit, away to introduce information into the central processing unit, andmemory for storing the information.

The basic preestablished conditions under which the comparison is madeinclude the following:

If the offer in any round is less than the counter-offer and within apreestablished percentage, for example thirty percent, of thecounter-offer in the same round, i.e. the offer is greater than or equalto seventy percent of the counter-offer, the transaction is completedfor an amount in accordance with a first preestablished formula, forexample, the median amount between the counter-offer and the offer.

If the offer in any round is the same as or greater than thecounter-offer, the transaction is completed for the counter-offeramount.

If the offer is not within the preestablished percentage of thecounter-offer in all rounds, for example if seventy percent of thecounter-offer is greater than the offer, the transaction is notcompleted unless the difference between the offer and counter-offer isless than a preestablished amount, for example $5,000, in whichtransaction the transaction is completed for an amount in accordancewith a second preestablished formula, for example at the median amountbetween the counter-offer and the offer. Thus, first and secondpreestablished formulas may be the same as or different from each otherdepending on the agreement of the parties.

The system preferably is designed to allow a user to communicate withthe system through a standard PC computer and modem via the Internet.The system may also include a voice message system or voice messagegenerator to allow a person communicating with the system to do sothrough a touch-tone or cell phone linkage or to guide the person in theuse of the system. Security is preferably included to make the systeminaccessible without entry of the proper information, for example, atransaction identification number identifying the transaction, asecurity code corresponding to the transaction, and a user security codecorresponding to the transaction and identifying the user, the userbeing the person or representative thereof who is making thecounter-offer or offer, for example, the agent for the person on whosebehalf the counter-offer or offer is made.

Preferably, the computer is secure, for example by the implementation ofa “firewall” or protective barrier against unauthorized traffic or theuse of encryption technology, and each transaction is preferablytriple-password protected to assure privacy and prevent unauthorizedaccess. For example, the system may require the user to enter a passwordor user identification number or alphanumeric combination and a userauthorization code providing access control to the system. For increasedsecurity, systems may be designed which require user authentication, forexample through the use of voice pattern, fingerprints, physicalsignature, or “smart” card. Advantageously, if the smart card is used,certain embodiments will allow an agreement to be completed by directtransfer of funds onto the party's smart card.

Still further advantages may be realized when transfer of the bargainedvalue of a given transaction can be automatedly, if not immediately, bemade to the party.

We have also recognized that some of the transactions which can not becompleted using the basic configuration automated bargaining arrangementcan nonetheless be completed in an efficient automated manner which hassimilar advantages but removes some of the rigidity of the basicarrangement through the use of either a facilitator, a “power” round orboth.

We have also recognized that yet further advantages may be achieved whena windfall relative to a normal payment is provided to an initiator,i.e. the first opposite party to present a particular transaction forbargaining. Initiator opposite parties benefit in a savings because thepayment they would make relative to a normal payment for a pair ofvalues is less. Initiator parties benefit in a windfall increaserelative to a normal payment for a pair of values.

In a fully automated system, offers and counter-offers that do notresult in an agreement are never revealed to anyone. In a systemimplementing a facilitator, disclosure of information to thefacilitation is limited and controlled.

Additional advantages may be achieved when agreement documents areautomatically generated by the system for provision to the parties.

FIG. 1 shows the basic system using the Internet or a telephone as thecommunications linkage.

Preferably, the central processing unit receives the agreement offersand a party or party enters counter-offers in communications with thesystem within a period of time, for example, 30 days. Time keeping isperformed to record the entry of the counter-offers or offers over theselected time period.

Preferably, there will be three offers for each transaction in a normalbargaining arrangement. In those instances, each counter-offer will becompared with the offer of the same number (i.e. Counter-offer #1 tooffer #1, Counter-offer #2 to offer #2, etc.). The computer matches theagreement offer against the party's counter-offer and performs itsprogrammed calculations in order to determine whether or not anagreement has been achieved. Where the counter-offer and offer intersectin accordance with preestablished conditions, agreement is reached. Inthe intersection transaction where the counter-offer is less than orequal to the offer, then the transaction is completed at an agreementamount equal to the counter-offer. In the intersection transaction wherethe counter-offer exceeds the offer, the system will preferably splitthe difference if the offer is also within a preestablished percentage,for example 70% of the counter-offer (i.e. counter-offer×0.70<=offer).In such transaction, the agreement amount is calculated to be the medianof the two, i.e., the counter-offer plus the offer divided by two. If70% of the counter-offer is still greater than the offer, there is noagreement unless the difference between the counter-offer and offer isless than a preestablished amount, for example $5,000, in whichtransaction the transaction is completed for the median amount betweenthe counter-offer and the offer.

Additionally, as an option a “power round” option may be made available.With a power round, an additional opportunity is given, or a parameteris changed to increase the prospect of an agreement being reached.

Thus, in one type of arrangement, the parties communicate only with thecomputer which acts as a proxy, always avoiding direct communicationwith each other for purposes of bargaining. Wasteful personalityconflicts, fruitless and unnecessary disagreements, posturing andpositioning cannot occur, so the parties deal exclusively with the“bottom line”.

Alternatively, a neutral facilitator may be used to assist withbargaining processes. The facilitator is a computer or a personoperating with, or without a computer, according to particularguidelines. Through the use of generic, non-revealing statements, thefacilitator the facilitator attempts to induce one or both of theparties to the transaction to adjust their offer(s) or counter-offer(s)into agreement range.

FIG. 2 shows how a party involved in a transaction would use theconfidential and fully automated system without direct communicationwith the other side.

The system preferably is also implemented securely so the system isaccessible only upon entry of the proper authenticating information,such as a transaction identification number identifying the transaction,and a user security code corresponding to the transaction andidentifying the person or representative thereof who is making thecounter-offer or offer.

Preferably, the system is capable of generating voice messages to aperson communicating with the system through a touch tone or a cellularphone linkage to guide the person in the use of the system.Alternatively, written messages maybe used as prompts when the system isaccessed from a personal computer via the Internet.

The entry of transactions and agreement offers may also be expedited bya trained staff of computer professionals. For example, the website ortelephone linkage can provide a series of options, one of which placesthe user into on-line or telephone communication with a customer servicerepresentative to answer questions or provide other assistance.Thereafter, the user may access the system by communicating to theprocessing unit via the Internet or by telephone, e.g. a toll-freenumber, at any time or day of the week to enter transactions oragreement offers. Preferably, the system also has time keepingimplemented to record the introduction of the information correspondingto the offers counter-offers or counter-offers over a period of time. Inthis way, introduction of information corresponding to counter-offers oroffers may be made in a plurality of communications with the system overa period of time. The system can of course be configured to handlemultiple telephone calls or other communications from anywhere in theworld.

Depending upon the particular implementation, a currency converter isalso included. This allows adversaries to negotiate using differentcurrencies, for example, U.S. dollars, Euros, Pounds, Lira, or Yen,without having to take into account the current exchange rate ornegotiate using an unfamiliar currency. When offers or counter-offersare entered in such a system, the system automatically converts theoffer and counter-offer into a common currency. Typically, this will bethe currency specified by the selling party. Alternatively, the currencyused can be based upon a joint selection by the adversaries, forexample, a Japanese party and Canadian party could select the Euro asthe basic currency of bargaining. The computer performs its functionsand the result are reported to the parties as they occur in real timewithout waiting.

The system includes modules which act as a negotiator proxy. Thisencourages and enables sellers to take a realistic approach to agreementwith no risk of appearing irresolute or hesitant since a seller'sfinancial counter-offers that do not result in an agreement are neverdisclosed. Preferably, in the normal course, sellers have only three orsome other previously agreed-upon number of opportunities or rounds tocomplete transactions using the system, and preferably agreement offersor rounds have only a limited period or “shelf life” in which they areoperable, for example thirty days for all rounds, which encouragesprompt action by parties.

The system preferably also collects and processes agreement datagenerated from an agreement reached through the operation of the systemfor dissemination and use by users, for example sponsors and parties, inestablishing the bargained value of future transactions. Agreement datamay also be used by facilitators in prompting one or both parties toadjust the amount they propose for agreement. Means may be provided fora user to access actual agreements achieved through the use of thesystem in other transactions, for example, through a menu or voicechoice provided to the user via telephone or the Internet whoseselection provides the user with information about prior agreements. Thedata may be tabulated in the memory so as to be accessible by certaincategories, for example by sponsor, by geographic location, or by othercategory. In this way, a user of the system can be guided in makingcounter-offers and offers by actual agreements reached in similartransactions.

Since the system is accessible via telephone and/or the internet,parties need not have an agent in order to engage the system andcomplete a transaction. Furthermore, incentives for using thearrangement may be provided, either directly, by giving a windfall tothe party who engaged the system for the transaction first, orindirectly, through various payment options or tie-in arrangements.

Various enhancements can also be provided to assist the agreementprocess. For example, the system may be constructed to generateagreement documents for the parties such as contracts or warranties. Afurther example of an agreement document is an airline ticket whichcould be generated where a party bargained with an airline for a seat ona given flight.

The invention can be understood readily from the following descriptionof a number of preferred embodiments, with and without particularenhancements, in conjunction with the overview of FIG. 1. The presentinvention provides an online system, preferably Intranet website via theInternet or telephone accessible or both, to facilitate the completionof transactions by allowing agents, parties to use a simple interface torapidly post a series of monetary transactions for a transaction to betested against an algorithm for possible agreement. Preferably, thesystem also calculates, stores and tabulates agreement data, once anagreement has been reached, for reference by other users and/or afacilitator.

A person opposite another person involved in a transaction, such as abuyer or an agent or other sponsor, preferably submits transactions tothe computerized system using electronic media and formats agreed uponby the parties. The sponsors preferably can also describe the algorithmamount and percentage, and at the individual transaction level, checktheir potential exposure for transactions with a built-in calculatorprovided by a computer program in the system.

Parties can make counter-offers directly, without hiring a agent, andcalculate potential agreement gains for their counter-offers. Partiesmay become aware of the system through advertising, word of mouth, linksprovided on selected websites and/or through affinity or partnershiparrangements.

Agents for a party can make counter-offers in return and calculate theirpotential agreement gain. Parties or their agents may be invited toparticipate in the process by an automatically generated letter that issent out once the sponsor enters the transaction. The parties or agentsmay then log into the system by special authorization codes provided inthe letters.

The parties involved may agree in advance to the algorithm amount andthe percentage, or a first person involved in a transaction may enterthis data which is then agreed to by the second person. Additionally,the parties may agree to allow for a power round. Depending upon theparticular implementation, the power round may involve an additionalround, a variation in some criteria and/or an agreement to alter thepayment if an agreement is reached. The parties may also be subject to awindfall adjustment, based upon who engaged the system first for thetransaction.

In an Internet-based embodiment of the present invention, an Internetwebsite is set up to provide the interface between system and user.Preferably, the major areas of the website include a login area forsponsors or their representatives, a login area for parties or agentsfor parties, and a login area for administration personnel who overseethe system. If desired, the website may also include a publiclyaccessible area that highlights information about the system. Forincreased security, a separate website may be set up with thisinformation.

Individuals using the computerized system preferably must log into thesystem before they can manipulate any data. Preferably, they can view,enter and change only that information that is within their accesslimits—as an agent for party, a directly accessing party, a sponsoruser, a sponsor administrator, or a system administrator.

A sponsor user is an agent who works for a sponsor, for example anorganization offering credit or loans, which has entered into anagreement to use the computerized system. A sponsor user is preferablylimited to entering and reviewing transactions relevant to their ownentered transactions, not transactions entered by other sponsor users ofthe same sponsor.

Thus, a sponsor user preferably may enter the website to login to thesystem, for example by using a user name and password combination orpair, read and agree to an agreement for the sponsor's participation inthe system, assign new transactions for party agent participation, andreview any completed, pending or in-process transactions that have beenentered into the system by that sponsor user.

A sponsor administrator is a sponsor user who has been grantedadministrator privileges by the sponsor. Preferably, in addition toperforming all the tasks that a regular sponsor user may perform, asponsor administrator may enter the website to change sponsor contactinformation, change sponsor user login and contact information, add ordelete sponsor users, create sponsor users with administratorprivileges, and review transactions for all sponsor users within thesponsor.

Parties or their agents may enter the website to login to the systempreferably using a username and password pair, read and agree to asystem participation agreement for the party, and review transactioninformation as prepared by the sponsor, with current transaction statusinformation.

Preferably, system administrators who work for a company administeringthe system assist in the implementation of the system. Systemadministrators with proper authorization, for example username/passwordcombination identifying them as such, may enter the website to review,modify, delete and create sponsors, sponsor users, and sponsoradministrators, and review, modify and delete and create transactions ortransactions to be processed by the system. Preferably, a transactionreport writer may be provided containing current transaction statusinformation searchable by date, sponsor, sponsor user, transaction nameand status, which is able to be accessed or queried by the systemadministrator. A more limited form of transaction report writer may alsobe provided to parties and other users of the system in which onlyinformation that is within the user's access limit may be searched.

The system of the present invention is preferably designed to make iteasy for either a party directly engaging the system, or a seller'sagent using an on-line connection such as a common Internet browser ortelephone to access the system and attempt to complete a transactioninvolving a quantifiable agreement amount.

In using the system, the sponsor accesses the system, for example, witha login to the website. The sponsor may at that time enter any pertinenttransaction information about the transaction and the party agent. Afteradding or reviewing transaction details, the sponsor submits all at onceor over time a number of agreement offers, preferably up to three, foreach transaction submitted. Each agreement offer is identified by Round.For example, a sponsor may enter $4,000 as the offer for the first round(Round 1), $6000 for the second round (Round 2), and $8000 for the thirdround (Round 3). If a power round option is available, the sponsor mayalso be prompted for information for use in the power round, if one isnecessary.

If desired, in website based systems, an online calculator may be usedto notify the sponsor user at that time as to what the sponsor's highestpotential exposure might be. For example, if the preestablishedconditions are such that the transaction will be completed at themidpoint between the counter-offer and offer if the offer is at least70% of the counter-offer or within $500 of the counter-offer, whicheveris greater, a sponsor user who enters $7000 as the offer for a round maycalculate that the possible exposure is $8500 (corresponding to a$10,000 counter-offer, i.e. the highest counter-offer that will triggeran agreement under these conditions).

Once the transaction is entered on the system, the party or party'sagent is contacted, for example by ordinary or electronic mail. (Forsimplicity, the party's agent will be used but the discussion appliesequally to the party and to other representatives of the party). Theparty's agent chooses an agent security code, which is preferably aunique numeric personal identification number (“pin number”) thatpermits the agent to access the computerized system. The party's agentmust also agree to be bound by any agreement achieved by the partiesusing the computerized system and may also at this time agree to thepercentage within which a counter-offer and offer in a round must be foragreement to occur, the formula for determining the amount of theagreement, the amount which may be zero in which the transactionnonetheless will reach agreement if the difference in the counter-offerand offer in a given round is less than or equal to that amount, and theformula for determining the amount of the agreement in that instance.The transaction is now ready for agreement, and the party's agent willpreferably have three normal Rounds, or opportunities, to complete atransaction, which may be entered over time or all at once.

Referring now to the block diagram of FIG. 2, the party agent or otheruser (for example a buyer or sponsor) accesses the system via theInternet using any standard web browser or via an ordinary touch-tone orcellular telephone. No special equipment or training is needed by theagent to use the system. The system “prompts” the agent at each step ofthe process and provides automated, on-counter-offer help if needed.

For example, referring to the block diagram of FIG. 3, upon accessingthe system, the user is met with a greeting (step 30) followed by anumber of options that may be selected by pressing the appropriatenumber of a touch-tone or cellular telephone (step 31).

In steps 32-35, the agent's pin number and preferably two numeric“passwords” are required to commence the bargaining of a transaction.The system preferably generates a voice confirmation of the informationwhich the user may confirm or cancel and reenter the information (seestep 34) The system may, upon confirmation of the information, determinethe correctness of the information and the user's authorization toaccess the system for that transaction. After entry and confirmation ofthe required numbers, the agent follows the prompts and enterscounter-offers using the telephone keypad or by typing in thecounter-offer at his or her personal computer. The system may alsorequest confirmation of information entered by the agent. See FIG. 3 fortelephone-based embodiments.

The computerized system is designed to adhere to the will of the partiesand makes no attempt to “force” an agreement. The transaction can onlybe completed only at a figure agreeable to the parties, not at somefigure arbitrarily set by an interviewing third party. Even when afacilitator is used, the facilitator may only make rule driven orgeneric statements designed to “nudge” the parties into the agreementrange and is preferably not directly privy to any of thecounter-offer(s) or offer(s) made in a subsequent round. Thus, theparties can bargain fairly using the system without relinquishingagreement authority.

Rounds may preferably be completed in one, two or three calls orcomputer sessions within a given time period, preferably thirty days.Once entered, the system instantly and in real time compares eachcounter-offer to the agreement offer for each Round. If thecounter-offer and offer match or are within some preestablished range,the transaction is completed. For example, if the offer is within twentypercent of the counter-offer, the transaction is completed in accordancewith a preestablished formula, for example the transaction is completedfor the median amount. If the offer and counter-offer differ by morethan twenty percent in all three Rounds, the transaction will not becompleted or, if available, will invoke a power round. If, during thenormal rounds, the agreement offer is the same as or greater than theparty's counter-offer, the transaction is completed for thecounter-offer amount.

Preferably, the preestablished conditions are such that even if theoffer and counter-offer differ by more than a preestablished percentagein all three rounds, the transaction will nonetheless be completed ifthe offer and counter-offer are within a preestablished amount, forexample $5,000, in which transaction the transaction will reachagreement in accordance with a second preestablished formula, which mayagain be the median amount.

Two examples of a series of normal rounds and the results are given inTable 1. In these examples, the first preestablished formula is themedian amount between the offer and the counter-offer. In Example 2, thepreestablished amount is $5,000 and the second preestablished formula isthe same as the first preestablished formula, i.e. counter-offer plusoffer divided by two equals the agreement amount.

TABLE 1 EXAMPLE 1 (preestablished percentage: 80% of counter-offer)Round Party's counter-offer Agreement Offer Result 1 $200,000 $40,000 NoAgreement 2 $150,000 $60,000 No Agreement 3 $100,000 $80,000 Completedfor $90,000 EXAMPLE 2 (preestablished percentage: 70% of counter-offer)Round Seller's counter-offer Agreement Offer Result 1  $19,000  $4,500No Agreement 2  $14,000  $6,500 No Agreement 3  $12,000  $8,000Completed for $10,000

Preferably, the system promptly notifies the parties of an agreement,for example while the user is online or via email to offline parties orby telephone, and follows that notice with a written confirmation.Unaccepted offers and counter-offers expire without further action byany party, preferably after thirty (30) days.

The processing of the transaction data begins when a person involved ina transaction, preferably a party representing a person against whom atransaction or series of transactions is made, for example a sponsor, oran unrepresented party engaging the system, enters into the centralprocessing unit a series of rounds of offers for a transaction (or ifthe party, a series of rounds of counter-offers to complete thetransaction). The information as to a transaction is submittedelectronically in a format compatible with the system, for example viaphone input or PC input fed for processing by the central processingunit.

Another person involved in the transaction, for example, when the firstentity for the transaction is a sponsor, a party representing a personbringing a transaction enters a series of counter-offers to complete thetransaction into the system. The counter-offers and offers are enteredwithout disclosure to other persons involved in the transaction. Theseries of counter-offers and the series of offers are paired up andcompared on a round-by-round basis in accordance with preestablishedconditions. For example, the parties may agree to be bound to reachagreement the transaction if the counter-offer and the offer in anygiven round are identical (in which transaction the transaction iscompleted for that amount) or are within a previously agreed-upon rangeor formula, for example, within 20% or $5,000 or some combination (inwhich transaction the transaction is completed in accordance with apreviously agreed-upon formula, for example at the midpoint between thecounter-offer and the offer). Otherwise, the system goes on to the nextround and the values from the previous round that did not result in anagreement are normally deleted. After each round the system communicatesto the parties the result of the value comparison, i.e. no agreement orcompleted at a certain amount.

The computerized bargaining may be implemented in Internet-basedembodiments using a computer program representing a distributed databaseapplication written in a Markup Language such as ColdFusion MarkupLanguage and HyperText Markup Language (HTML). The system preferably isdistributed through ColdFusion Server extensions which allow forinteractive processing and Microsoft's SQLserver to allow agents andloan officers to access it via a standard web browser such as versions3.0 and up of Microsoft Internet Explorer and Netscape Navigator, whichcan be found on a variety of platforms, including Microsoft Windows,Macintosh, and UNIX-type operating systems.

Information entered for a transaction is submitted to a central databasevia the Internet. The database preferably indexes sponsors, sponsorusers and administrators associated with that sponsor, and transactionsassociated with that sponsor. It also preferably indexes agentsassociated with transactions.

Preferably, if a period of time passes without activity when a user isonline, for example 20 minutes under normal network traffic conditions,the user is automatically logged out for security precautions. For allor a portion of the data, the system may be designed so that once datahas been entered, a sponsor or other user has a period of time, forexample 30 minutes, during which it can be modified or withdrawn butafter which the data cannot be withdrawn.

Referring now to the flow chart of FIG. 4, the preferred computerprogram implementing the system in a normal multi-round bargainingenters at step 10 when a sponsor user opens their web browser (forexample Netscape or Microsoft Internet Explorer 3.x or 4.x) and accessesthe system website. The user is prompted by a menu with a series ofoptions, one of which is “enter as Sponsor” which is chosen. If desired,the system may automatically write information in the form of ASCII textor “cookies” onto the user's hard drive as a means of keeping track ofthe user and the user's use of the system. Preferably, the memory meansstores this information. Upon access to the system by the user, anypreexisting cookies of the user may be modified to reflect the currentaccess of the system by the user. Unless the user has explicitly deniedcookies on his or her browser, the computerized system checks for theuser's name through a variable saved in the user's browser. If the userhas logged in before, the user is greeted by username, provided the useris logging in with the same computer. In step 11, the sponsor user ispresented with the choice of adding/editing transactions, viewing alltransactions for that sponsor, or logout. As mentioned previously,preferably all or a portion of the data in the system may not bewithdrawn after a period of time in which event the user will no longerbe permitted to modify that information. Preferably a menu is providedin which the user may choose one of two links to separate functions. Forexample, a menu bar may be provided on the left hand side of the screenin which the user chooses by clicking on the appropriate box in the menubar corresponding to the function. The user's choice is saved throughintermediate login and contract screens which follow. Alternatively,step 11 may be implemented following login (step 12) discussed below.

The program next moves to step 12 in which the user must first log intothe system before editing or viewing transactions. The user must enter ausername (unique to the entire database) and a corresponding password.If these do not match the pairs known by the system, the user is shownan error screen with the option to try again.

Alternately, if the user has logged in before with the same computer,his or her username may already be entered into the system, and theserver which distributes the web pages checks the user's passwordagainst the username. If desired, the system may be designed so that theuser has the option to enter a new or different username to allowmultiple users to access the system from the same computer.

Computer program modules preferably are written to implement the varioussteps of the process. For example, a module controlling the sponsor useridentity process may be created to hold all variables related to asponsor user's identity and to transactions of that sponsor.

A “ValidateNewUserName” module may be created which is called when theuser places an entry in the user name field and leaves the field form.Preferably, the user name entry form has a JavaScript object whichchecks to see if the username has already been taken, and if so,displays an error message.

Step 13 shows the user a system participation agreement if the correctname and password were entered. The agreement preferably details theterms of use of the system and details regarding the process.Preferably, a button is provided on the menu for either agreement ordisagreement with the contract. If the user agrees to the terms of thecontract, he or she proceeds to the original menu choice (adding/editingtransactions, or viewing transactions). otherwise, the user is returnedto the login screen with all information cleared.

If the user agrees to the participation agreement, the system may sendthe user to the original menu choice in step 11. Alternatively, thesystem may be designed to send the user to a menu with the options ofassigning a new transaction, reviewing transactions, adding/editingtransactions or logging out.

If the adding/editing transactions choice was originally chosen, theprogram enters step 14 where an Add/Edit transaction screen preferablyallows the sponsor to enter the following information into the database:

-   -   Party name    -   Transaction Description    -   Sponsor Transaction ID    -   Values for each of 3 agreement rounds    -   The Party Agent name, firm, address, city, state, zip code,        telephone, fax, and email

In telephone-based embodiments, some or all of this information may beentered with the assistance of system administrators.

The Sponsor transaction ID is preferably a number used for sponsorinternal tracking selected by the sponsor.

The value inputs need not all be entered at one time. The system willprompt the user to enter an amount for each round individually with theoption to leave the amount for any given round blank (for entry, ifnecessary at a later time).

The dollar value inputs preferably include calculator functions whichcalculate the total possible exposure for the amount entered. The screenalso may display the status of the transaction. Upon submitting theinformation, the user may be returned a confirmation screen with allentered information upon which the user can choose to accept the changesor return to edit the transaction further. Preferably, the systemprovides the user with a period of time, for example, thirty minutes, toedit some or all of the transaction information before that informationbecomes final and is analyzed if corresponding values have also beensubmitted for the opposite party. Information made final but for whichthere is no corresponding counterpart, (e.g.: after the period of timehas expired), may be edited or withdrawn preferably only by agreement ofall the parties.

Preferably, the Add/Edit screen includes a “submit” button at thebottom, which sends the information to be checked for formatting. Itpoints out missing or improperly formatted text, or returns the text forverification. If the text is accepted, the data is sent to the databasefor entry as an addition or update. Preferably, a sponsor user cannotedit a transaction in which the party agent has started to submitcounter-offers into the system, except to change clerical informationsuch as address and phone number.

A “TransactionDataEntry” module may be created to hold a template thatprocesses the sponsor user's entry of transaction data and add/insert itinto the database. The main features of the program are the checking ofan expired edit time, and whether or not the party agent has entered acounter-offer in the system. In either event, the form aborts and anerror message is presented.

Preferably the program is written so that when a record is to beinserted, the insertion is held up and locked using a suitable programuntil the system can read the record in order for the details to bedisplayed back to the user within the screen for confirmation and inorder that the system can provide a HREF to its primary key which isautomatically assigned by the database.

Another module called “SponsorAssignsTransaction” preferably drives thesponsor user's entry of a transaction into the database. The Add/Editcalculator may be any suitable computer program, such as a JavaScriptprogram, which applies the algorithm amounts specified by the sponsor todetermine the maximum possible exposure.

If the original choice was viewing all transactions, the program movesto step 15 where the View transactions screen reveals all theinformation for a given transaction which has previously been enteredduring an Add/Edit choice. The user is also preferably given an optionto edit the information, preferably with a specified time limit (e.g. 30minutes) for the rounds of offers provided a party agent has not startedto submit offers or counter-offers. The View screen may, if desired,also display a list of transactions that have been assigned to a sponsoruser.

Preferably, a module called “SponsorUserShow” contains a template whichshows the user these records. If the sponsor user has administratorprivileges, the module shows all user records related to the sponsor. Asimilar module called “SponsorShowTransactions” preferably functions toshow transaction information.

In step 16, the user may log out of the system from a menu choice to endthe session and return the user to the login screen. This menu choicepreferably also follows completion of the Add/Edit and View choices ofsteps 14 and 15. If a user attempts to engage the system again, he orshe will have to login their user name/password pair. Preferably,logging out clears the password, but not the user name, so that uponsubsequent login the computerized system may check for the user's namein the user's cookie if the user accesses the system with the samecomputer.

The screens appearing in the operation of the system may be created bysuitable computer programs written in a Standard Generalized Mark-upLanguage such as ColdFusion Script.

The computer program code for the Login screen creates the login form ifa user is determined not to be in a logged in state. (FIG. 4, step 12).This form preferably passes on a variable value indicating the user'seventual destination.

The module for the License screen follows the Login program and checksthe user's authentication credentials if the user passes, the Licensescreen is shown (FIG. 4, step 13).

Preferably, a module called Login results follows the License module andsets the user state to logged in. Unless the user has explicitly deniedcookies on his or her browser, the program also checks to see if theuser's cookie has taken correctly and sends an error message if it doesnot. If all is correct, the module sends the user on to his or herselected destination.

A Logout module may be used to log a user out of the system. Preferablythe next time the user tries to use a menu item, he or she will beprompted for a password and to approve the license agreement.

If the user disagrees with the license, a module following the Licensemodule displays the Disagree screen which preferably indicates that theuser must agree to the license in order to use the system.

An Access Denied screen may be created to show a user who attempts toaccess a section he or she does not have authorization for.

A Default page for debugging purposes may also be used to show currentuser login status. Preferably, this page is for a system administrator,and other users would normally not be able to access this page withoutmentioning it explicitly.

The above-described steps preferably apply equally to sponsoradministrators (sponsor users designated with administrator privilegesby the sponsor). However, the system preferably may be designed so thatif the user is identified as holding administrator privileges, he or shewill see an enhanced version of the sponsor user menu. In addition toproviding the user with the option to assign a new transaction, reviewtransactions, and logout, the sponsor administrator menu provides theoptions to change sponsor information, change his or her own userinformation, add a user, show/edit users, and remove a user.

If the change sponsor information option is selected, the program sendsthe user to change the sponsor information screen which allows the userto add/edit sponsor information stored in the database, including:

-   -   Sponsor Name    -   Address    -   City    -   State    -   Zip Code    -   Phone    -   Fax    -   Email

If the remove a user option is selected, the program sends the user touser information screens which the sponsor user administrator can use tochange, delete, or add information to any sponsor user's record to whichthey have access for their sponsor.

For example, the user information screen may allow the user to add/editthe following information into the database:

-   -   User Name    -   Sponsor Name    -   Address    -   City    -   State    -   Zip Code    -   Telephone    -   Fax    -   Email    -   Username    -   Password    -   Active User (yes or no)    -   Administrator User (yes or no)

Computer modules preferably contain the screen forms for entering andediting sponsor user and new sponsor user information. These modulesalso may screen users for administrator privileges, for example, beforeallowing the user to edit records.

Many of the above-described steps preferably also apply to a partyagent, i.e. an agent that represents an individual or company that hastransaction or has initiated a transaction with a sponsor who hasentered into a participation agreement to use the system.

The agent may be notified, for example, by regular mail, that he or shecan login to the website and submit a specified number, for examplethree, of offers or counter-offers to satisfy a transaction according topreestablished conditions. The agent may be required to sign aparticipation agreement, preferably mailed to him or her, before giventhe proper login credentials. Once the agent signs and forwards theagreement to the system administrators, the agent is given the properlogin credentials.

In a similar manner, a party may contact the system to submit atransaction without going through an agent. The party may be required tosign or otherwise acknowledge being bound in accordance with theparticipation agreement, and in some transactions tender some form ofpayment, to engage the system.

As in the transaction of sponsor users, the party agent opens his or herweb browser and accesses the system website (See FIG. 4, step 10). Theagent, however, chooses an “enter as Agent” option provided on the menuthat appears.

In step 11, the agent is presented with the choice of reviewingtransactions placing counter-offers on transactions assigned to theagent. Preferably a menu is provided in which the user may choose one ofthree links to separate functions via a menu bar on the left-hand sideof the screen. As in the transaction of the sponsor user, the partyagent's choice is saved through intermediate login and contract screenswhich follow.

The program next moves to step 12 in which the user must first log intothe system before making counter-offers or viewing transactions. A“Login” computer file for an agent similar to the “Login” file for thesponsor preferably implements this step. Preferably, the user must entera transaction identification number, a security code, for example, aninternally generated random number which functions as a password), andan agent security code (preferably, a code generated by the sponsor). Ifthese do not match the information known by the database, the user isshown an error screen with the option to try again.

As in the transaction with the sponsor user, step 13 shows the partyagent a system participation agreement if the correct name and passwordwere entered with the same options and results discussed previously. A“License” file similar to the “License” file for the sponsor userpreferably implements this step.

If the user agrees to the terms of the agreement, he or she proceeds tothe original menu choice (reviewing transactions or makingcounter-offers). Alternately, the system may be designed to send theuser to a main menu with the options of obtaining transactioninformation, placing a counter-offer for the next round of theparticular transaction or settling a different transaction. A“Login-Results” file and a “Disagree” file similar to correspondingfiles for the sponsor-user follow the “License” file to implement thisstep depending on whether the party agent agrees or disagrees.Similarly, “Logout”, “Access-Denied”, and “Default” files correspondingto similar files for sponsor users preferably are provided.

If the transaction information option was selected, a transactioninformation screen is provided which preferably allows the party agentto view the following information from the database:

-   -   Transaction Name    -   Status    -   Seller Name    -   Agent name    -   Agent firm    -   Agent address    -   Agent city    -   Agent state    -   Agent zip    -   Agent telephone    -   Agent fax    -   Agent email

Preferably, the screen displays the current status of the transactionwith the corresponding details of the transaction without the ability ofthe agent to edit any of this information. A module controlling thetransaction status process may be written to hold all variables relatedto an agent's transactions.

An “AgentTransactionInfo” module may also be created which displays theinformation an agent needs to start making counter-offers against atransaction. Preferably, the data in the module may not be withdrawn.

If the next round with current transaction option was chosen, theprogram moves to a Next Round screen which provides the agent with theoption to place a counter-offer against a particular transaction. A“TransactionNextRound” module may be created to form a template whichdetermines what the next round is, if any, and places a bid form infront of the user. Preferably, the screen provides a form box in whichthe agent places the counter-offer, and if desired menu options toeither test the counter-offer against the exposure calculator(preferably implemented by a JavaScript program applying the algorithmamounts specified by the sponsor) to determine the lowest possibleamount the transaction will be completed for, or to submit thecounter-offer.

After the agent submits the counter-offer for the next round, thetransaction is submitted for comparison. A “TransactionNextRound” modulemay be created to form a template to determine the results of thecomparison based on the information that the party submitted on theTransactionNextRound form and on the preestablished conditions.Preferably, the preestablished conditions are determined on a sponsor bysponsor basis but may also be transaction specific.

If the counter-offer and the corresponding offer by the sponsor for agiven round are within the preestablished conditions, the user ispreferably presented with a transaction acceptance screen. If thecounter-offer and the corresponding offer are not within thepreestablished conditions, the user is preferably presented with a linkto the next round screen, if a round is available, i.e. the previouslyagreed number of rounds of counter-offers has not been used and a powerround is not available. If a round is unavailable, for example, theparties have agreed to three rounds and the party agent has enteredthree rounds of counter-offers, the user will see a message that thetransaction is now closed in the system.

If the user is presented with the transaction acceptance screen, thetransaction is completed and the party or agent is notified of thedollar amount of the agreement, and preferably the details of where tosend the final agreement request (e.g., the sponsor's address). Partiescan also be notified of other information pertinent to the transaction,for example, shipping information for a product sold in the transaction.As shown in FIG. 4, the system preferably is designed so that uponcompletion of the transaction, data for the agreement is collected andstored for access and use by sponsors and parties in establishing thebargained value in future transactions.

Preferably, the system is administrated by a system administrator whomay be an employee of a third party who has been granted login rights tothe administration function of the system for the purpose of addingsponsors, generating reports, or performing customer service on thewebsite.

The system administrator reaches the website by opening his or herwebbrowser, pointing it at the website interface and entering inappropriate identification numbers or passwords identifying him or heras an administrator. A module may be created which contains anadministrator form for the assignment or editing of a transaction.

The administrator may then be presented with an administrator menu whichprovides the following menu choices:

Sponsor options, including the options to add/edit a sponsor and to showa list and links to all sponsors;

User options, including the options to show users (preferably a list andlinks to all sponsor users, searchable by user name and sponsor name),to add a new user, and to delete a sponsor user;

Transaction options, including the options to show transactionspreferably by a list and links to all transactions, searchable bytransaction name, sponsor name, start date, end date and status, toassign a new transaction, and to delete a transaction; and

Site options (testing modules) including the options to clear cookiesfor the purpose of losing stored login information, to logout for thepurpose of logging out the system and if desired to clear cookies, andto show login status for current login details.

Preferably, modules may be created to facilitate these options. Forexample, an “AdminNewSponsorUserEntryForm” module may be created whichcontains an entry form to enter a new sponsor user. Preferably, thisform is different from the regular form because of the username checkingthat occurs during the user's interaction with the page.

An “AdminGetSponsorNewTransaction” module may be created which chooses asponsor for the purpose of adding a new transaction. Preferably, theidentity of the sponsor should be known when a transaction is added sothat the transaction may be properly assigned to a sponsor user.

An “AdminShowTransactions” module may also be created which shows allopen transactions in an administrator form.

An “AdminSponsorUserDataEntry” module may also be created to hold atemplate which inserts or updates a sponsor user. The module makes aquery to obtain the primary identification of the user, if the systemdoes not have this information, in order for the system to set an editlink.

An “AdminSponsorUserEntryForm” module may also be created to hold atemplate representing the entry form for sponsor user administratorinformation.

An “AdminUserShow” module may also be created which an administratorform to show all users.

A “TransactionDataEntry” module may also be created which a form toenter/insert transactions into the database. If the Add/Edit a Sponsoroption is chosen, an Add/Edit screen preferably appears to allow theadministrator to the following information from the database:

-   -   Sponsor name    -   Address    -   City    -   State    -   Zip Code    -   Phone    -   Fax    -   Mail    -   Algorithm amount    -   Algorithm percentage    -   System ID    -   Active Account (yes or no)

“SponsorDataEntry”, “SponsorEntryForm”, and “SponsorShow” modules may becreated to add a new sponsor to the database and show a return page, tocontain an entry form to enter a new sponsor, and to show a table of allsponsors entered into the system.

“ValidateNewUserName” and “ValidateUserName” modules may be createdwhich check to see if a username exists in a sponsor table and if so,display an error message. Preferably, these modules are called from aJavaScript lost focus event. The ValidateNewUserName module preferablygives no consideration to the current username as it assumes that thereis none.

The Delete User option provides the administrator with screens in whichthe administrator can change, delete or add information to any sponsoruser's record as in the transaction with the sponsor administrator'sremove a user option. Preferably, a “DeleteUser” module and a“RemoveUser” module may be created which show the form that allows auser to delete a sponsor user and perform the database call to remove auser.

The Add/Edit transaction option provides the administrator with anAdd/Edit transaction screen similar to the sponsor administrator'sAdd/Edit Transaction screen. In addition, the system preferably allowsthe administrator to add transaction status information including:

-   -   Transaction Status    -   Last sponsor edit (date-time)    -   Edited by    -   Sponsor name    -   Last agent edit (date-time)    -   Last administrator edit (date-time)

A “DeleteTransaction” module and a “RemoveTransaction” module may becreated to show the form that allows the user to delete a transactionand to perform the database call to remove a transaction.

Preferably, the system also provides a report writer or searchablemodule of transaction information for reporting purposes. By queryingthe report writer, the status of any number of transactions may beviewed by the administrator for the purposes of internal reporting.

Preferably, transaction information may be searched based on thefollowing criteria:

-   -   Transaction Name    -   Sponsor name    -   Status    -   Assigned date (start and finish dates)    -   Modified criteria (start and finish dates, for example, all        records modified in a particular day)    -   Show only records unmodified by an agent

The selected platform and hardware to implement the system should bescalable enough to handle large loads of traffic and data, while beingresponsive to user requests.

Similarly, the database chosen should be scalable enough to handle adistributed data environment, and to be able to handle large loads ofdata, while being responsive to user requests.

The application server likewise should be scalable enough to handle adistributed data environment, and to be able to handle large loads ofdata, while being responsive to user requests. Preferably, theapplication server is a popular platform in which to build applicationsof this type in order to support future changes, add-one, modifications,etc.

The server preferably is an open architecture computer that has theability for failed hardware parts to be replaced swiftly. Thisconfiguration also maintains the availability to increase the power ofthe machine or counter-offer. For example, a computer having an InternalPentium 400 MHz Processor, with 128 MB SDRAI4, a pair of multi-Giga ByteHard Drives, a Promise PCIRAID Level 0 Controller or a RAID Level 5Controller, a 32xCD-ROM, and 3-COM 10-BaseT Ethernet Card is suitablefor use in the system.

The platform for use in the system preferably has the ability to workwith open database systems, provide a reliable and scalable platform forInternet and line of business applications, and offer breed file andprint services that give users easy and effective access to informationand resources. For example, Microsoft Windows NT Server 4.0, or 4.0(Enterprise Edition) system, a powerful multipurpose server operatingsystem, is a suitable platform because of its broad support of manyapplication servers, its scalability to support the system of thepresent invention and its popularity with developers who createapplications of this type. The platform preferably integrates thefollowing services into underlying operating system infrastructure:

Built-in networking and communication services

Comprehensive Web services for the Internet and corporate intranets

Complete platform form for distributed applications

Enterprise-wide directory services

Integrated and robust security services

Easy-to-use and flexible management services.

The system of the present invention preferably uses a webserver, such asMicrosoft Internet Information Server 4.0, that offers provenscalability and tight integration with the operating system and otherproducts used in the system. The web server preferably includespublishing features, customizable tools, and technologies that permitthe creation of Web pages, the publication of information to the WorldWide Web, the sharing of files and data on operating systems such asWindows NT, Novell NetWare and UNIX servers, and over numerousdatabases, including Microsoft SQL Server, oracle, and Sybase databases,and the search capacity for content in HyperText Markup Language andMicrosoft office document types, and multiple languages.

Preferably, the webserver offers process isolation, a feature whichprotects applications and Web sites from failure caused by misbehavingcomponents or Web-applications on the server by running them in separatememory spaces. The webserver should also have, when combined with theoperating system, built-in distributed application services thatautomatically scale to serve thousands of simultaneous users.

Preferably, a high performance, open architecture, scalable database,such as Microsoft SQL Server 6.5 or 7.0, is used in the system.

In one arrangement, the computer program is preferably one whichprovides a scalable platform to deliver high performance Webapplications with any major Web server on Windows or Solaris. AllaireColdFusion Application Server 3.1 and its cooperating ColdFusion MarkupLanguage are suitable for use in developing the system.

In another arrangement, the computer program is preferably one whichprovides a scalable three-tiered platform to deliver high performanceWeb applications with any major Web server on Windows or Solaris. Thefront end is ASP/HTML, the middle tier is Com Object written in C++ orJAVA, and the back end is SQL Server and MTS.

Preferably, the system is hosted at a quality data center, such as aworldwide data center company which provides access to the Internet andmonitors the servers to ensure that they are responding to Internetrequests.

Although in the basic configuration there are numerous advantages toexclusively dealing with the bottom line, there is a potentialdisadvantage in some transactions due to using specific, discrete andquantifiable criteria. Namely, lack of flexibility for closetransactions. In a given round, the two parties may be very close to anagreement, but unable to consummate it because they are just outside thecriteria. However, since the system does not disclose the parties'proposed amounts, they will have no idea how far apart, or close, theyare. For example, if, to reach agreement the transaction thedifferential must be within $10,000, the same result—no agreement—willbe reached by the basic system or method whether the differential is$10,005 or $75,000.

Optional Additions

To increase the number of transactions which could possibly becompleted, other optional features can be added. In particular, if theopposite parties do not meet the criteria used in normal rounds but arenot far off, agreement may still be possible. Through use of a neutralfacilitator, a “power round” or a combination of the two additionaltransactions can be efficiently and expediently completed.

A facilitator may be optionally employed to communicate a “nudge” to oneor more parties to a transaction into submitting a value which is morelikely to result in an agreement. The facilitator acts as a neutralautomaton, in that it operates in a mechanistic fashion. However, it mayin fact be a live person, a computer or some combination of the two.FIG. 5 shows a representative basic system further incorporating thefacilitator option. As described above, the system includes a mainprocessor and storage representatively illustrated for simplicity as aserver 50 including one or more microprocessors and memory, and anassociated secure database 52 stored disk and/or tape accessible to theserver. The facilitator option includes, as a minimum, rules orconstraints 54 that govern the kinds of encouraging statements thatfacilitator may use. As shown, the facilitator is implemented so thateither the completely automated or partly automated mode may be used.For the completely automated mode, the main processor is guided byprogrammed rules a constraints and directly communicates with thebargaining entities via the on-line interface 56 illustratively shownconnected (by communication links 58, 60) to some entity's telephone 62and another entity's computer 64. Alternatively a separate facilitatorprocessor 66 may be used to formulate encouraging statements or accessavailable information in order to identify one or more appropriatecommunications. The facilitator processor 66 communicates with the mainprocessor to provide information for usage by the main processor, eitheras communicated, or after further formatting or processing. In thesimplest transaction the facilitator processor 66 providescommunications in a “ready to go” format, and the main processor merelyacts as a conduit. In more complex transactions, the main processor maybe separately programmed to make further decisions, for example, toselect from among provided encouraging statements, or to reformat aselected encouraging statement for communication to one or bothentities. The facilitator may also have access to stored information inthe secure database, such as offers, counter-offers, prior agreements,geographic information, etc. The facilitator processor 66 may alsoinclude a conventional display 68 and input device(s) 70 which allow alive person to act as part of the facilitator 66. The facilitatoroperates in accordance with a set of prescribed rules, distinct from thecriteria for agreement. To perform its function, the facilitator may, insome arrangements, be privy to information in a round that is notrevealed to the opposite parties or their representatives. For example,the facilitator may know one or more of: the offer and counter-offer ina given round, the actual numerical differential between the two, thepercentage differential between the two, the amount of change or “delta”by either or both entities that would trigger a completion of thetransaction, some other information indicative of the potential foragreement, or any or all of the foregoing. Ideally, the facilitator willknow the differentials or delta, rather than specific offers orcounter-offers, in order to insure disclosure of one party's informationto an opposite party does not inadvertently occur, particularly when thefacilitator implementation involves a human being. Stated another way,the facilitator has some basis for knowing how close to an agreement theparties are, even if the facilitator does not know specifics for eitherparty's proposed agreement figure in one or more rounds.

In the simplest instance, the facilitator may get involved before thefirst value is provided by a particular party. In that transaction, thefacilitator would likely use information provided by the parties duringregistration in conjunction with past agreement information to provide astarting point for bargaining. For example, the facilitator mightinitially communicate with one or more of the opposite parties with astatement regarding the range of past agreements on record for a similartransaction.

By way of example, assume a buyer is purchasing an airline seat from anairline for a specific arrival and departure times and places. The buyersubmits the transaction to a bargaining system incorporating afacilitator. The seller believes the airline seat is worth $50.00. Priorto the buyer submitting any values usable in a round, the facilitatorencourages the seller with the statement “Similar flights have purchasedfor between $250.00 and $550.00”. The buyer will thus have an indicationthat their expectation is unrealistic. As a result, the buyer may decidenot to pursue the bargained transaction, or may decide to try anyway. Asa result of the encouraging, the buyer will ideally provide morerealistic offers, thereby increasing the prospect for agreement from theoutset.

Alternatively, or in addition, the facilitator could get involved inbetween one or more rounds. The advantage here is that the facilitatornow has available some information relating to the current state of theparties expectations for the particular transaction. Once thatinformation is available, the facilitator would communicate with one orboth opposite parties in a neutral fashion in order to induce either orboth to adjust their proposal to cause an agreement.

Since it is important that each party's proposed values remainundisclosed to any party opposite the transaction, communications whicheither directly communicate amounts or deltas or indirectly allowcalculation or reasonable estimation of the amounts are most preferablynot used. Of course, in particular implementations, there may be anunusual transaction where a more specific communication is warranted,but which might allow a party to reasonably estimate the oppositeparty's proposed number. Assume, for example, the extreme instance wherethe two parties' proposals were, respectively, $67,100 and $66,000 andthe differential for agreement was agreed to be $1,000. The partiesdiffer by only $1,100. In this instance, a communication to both partiesindicating “If you each give in on your amount, you WILL almostcertainly have an agreement” would probably tell both parties that theywere extremely close to agreement and, hence, allow an estimation ofwhat the other entity had proposed. Nonetheless, in such an extremetransaction, even if the parties were specifically told the proposalsthey would likely give in to reach agreement. Thus, the prompting orencouraging can significantly increase the chances of an agreement.

In the specific transaction of a human facilitator, guidelines forformulating neutral communications and/or a set of proposedcommunications to be adhered to would preferably be used in order tolimit the exercise of discretion and constrain the actions of thefacilitator. This minimizes the possibility that either party's proposalcan be estimated or known. In this manner, a greater degree offlexibility is achieved relative to a fully automated facilitator sincethe human facilitator can exercise some discretion however, thatdiscretion would be limited.

In the transaction of a fully automated facilitator or a human acting inconjunction with computer guidance, the rules or guidelines wouldpreferably be programmed into the computer or part of a facilitatoraccessible knowledge base. These optional configurations more severelylimit the discretion of the purely human facilitator, but the computerguided human still allows one or both parties to have human interactionduring bargaining, if it is desirable.

Irrespective of the whether the facilitator is a human being, a computeror some combination of the two, the statements made in thecommunications should be similar. Depending upon factors such as: theidentity or sophistication of the parties, the experience of the partieswith the particular bargaining arrangement described herein,geographical considerations, etc., the statements used as prompts orencouragements may be more or less colloquial. Additionally, thestatements should generally have a positive or encouraging bias in mostinstances so as to reassure the parties that the prospect for agreementis good. The following are a few examples considered to berepresentative, but by no means exclusive or exhaustive, acceptablestatements or prompts:

a) “The buyer will increase their offer if you decrease yourcounter-offer.”

b) “The seller has significantly adjusted her counter-offer downward,but the offer must also be increased.”

c) “You are close to an agreement but you still must give in some.”

d) “Agreement in the next round is a realistic probability if you adjustyour [offer/counter-offer].”

e) “The parties are yards, not miles, apart.”

f) “The parties should consider reviewing the agreements reached insimilar transactions before the next round.”

g) “You should consider that during your bargaining two similartransactions were completed, one for $25,000 and the other for $38,000.”

As an optional alternative, or supplement, to use of a facilitator, a“power” round may be used. A power round is an additional round which,by agreement of the parties or as a result of an implementationparameter, either gives a slight advantage to one party or changes therules in a predetermined manner, if the prescribed number of rounds doesnot cause completion of the transaction. Specifically, a power round mayresult from a specific agreement between the parties at some point inthe process, or be granted based upon application of some systemparameter, for example, which party was the first to engage the systemfor the transaction, the differential in the last round relative toother rounds, some mathematical analysis of the offer and counter-offerin the most recent round(s), the amount one or both parties haveadjusted their proposal per round, an analysis of the offer andcounter-offer vis-a-vis some statistical data tabulated and/ormaintained by the system regarding other agreements, or other suitablyimplemented consideration(s).

FIG. 6 is shows a simplified program flow when the system includes apower round. The bargaining starts (100) when one entity submits atleast one value. Once the system has a value from each entity (if thereare only two), the processor receives one or more values from the firstentity (102) and for the second entity (104) values are paired (106) andevaluated (108). If a pair satisfy the criteria in the normal manner(110) and an agreement amount is communicated (112). This is essentiallythe basic system operation described above. If, however, the normalrounds do not result in an agreement, and all the normal rounds havebeen exhausted (114), the system will check to see if a power round forthe bargaining is available (116). If not, the transaction does notreach agreement (118). If a power round is available, the system willthen check if a power round is enabled for this particular bargaining(120). Although not required, this allows the system the flexibility to,for example, ask whether one or more entities want to “buy” a powerround, invokes a facilitator intervention (if available), prompt forcriteria modification or such other modifications or features considereddesirable. If the power round is not enabled (122), due to lack ofwillingness of an entity to buy one, or an inability of the bargainingentities to agree on the criteria, for example, the transaction will notbe completed (124). If the power round is enabled, the system willperform a power round evaluation of one or more pairs of values usingthe power round criteria (126) or a power round guideline agreed to bythe parties. As with the normal rounds, if the power round fails, thetransaction does not reach agreement (128). If the power round criteriais met, the transaction will be completed. Depending upon the particularimplementation, the bargained value may be subject to adjustment. Inthat instance, the system will optionally further decide whether anadjustment is to be made (130), and what it should be (132). The systemthen communicates an agreement message (134) in the same general mannerdescribed above.

In one exemplary power round, following a three round limit, one party,typically the seller, is prompted to submit a fourth value analysis inconjunction with the last value (in this example, the third) value ofthe opposite party. In this scheme, the system retains, rather thandiscards, at least the opposite party's last value from the final normalround until the power round is complete. The seller's fourth submissionis then analyzed with the opposite party's value used in the third roundagainst using a specified criteria. Depending upon the particularsystem, the criteria used in the first through third round can still beused, or a new criteria can be applied. For example, if the criteriaapplied in the first through third round was a specified percentage, thesystem could utilize a different criteria, for example, by changing fromthe percentage differential to a fixed sum differential, widening thepercentage differential, increasing the sum differential, or applyingsome other preselected criteria agreed to by the parties, the particularcriteria allowed or applied in the power round vis-a-vis the criteria ina normal round being an implementation choice.

In any event, if the power round criteria is then satisfied, thetransaction would be completed. If not, the transaction would not reachagreement. Even with the optional power round, once an agreement is, oris not, reached all offers and counter-offers from all rounds that havenot already been deleted are discarded.

Another example of a power round is to allow one party to submitmultiple additional values (either offers or counter-offers) which areeach applied against the last value submitted by the opposite party,until either an agreement is reached or the party gives up.

Another example of a power round is to change the agreement criteria forthe final round. For example, in a five round scenario, the first fourrounds would proceed using a common criteria, but for the fifth, a newor modified criteria would be applied. For example, the parties may haveagreed that if a fifth round was required, the system would widen thepercentage differential by 2%, increase the actual differential upwardby $1,000, or allow some specified adjustment to the formula applied, bysome predetermined amount. Then, the fifth round would proceed as withthe prior four.

In another power round variant, all of the rounds proceed according inthe normal manner and, if the result is no agreement, one or more of theearlier rounds are sequentially rerun under a new agreed to criteria.This power round variant requires keeping all the values until eitherthe transaction agreement criteria is satisfied or completion of thepower round still does not result in an agreement.

In yet another variant, each of the rounds is rerun but the criteria isincrementally changed. For example, if the parties agree to a 3%widening in percentage each round could be rerun, first with a 1%widening, then with a 2% widening, etc. If at any point the criteriabeing applied is satisfied, the an agreement is reached. Similarly, awidening by $6,000 could be implemented all at once by an actualwidening of $6,000 per round, or for example, by sequential changing theamount in steps by $6,000, $4,000, $2,000 and $1,000 in each of the 1stthrough 4th rounds or $2,000, $4,000 and $6,000 in a 3 round bargaining.

It is contemplated that still other power round variants may bestraightforwardly implemented to similar effect, the important pointbeing the provision of some additional opportunity for agreement usingknown, although possibly different, parameter(s) compared to a normalround.

As a further implementation detail, it may be desirable to impose some“cost” in return for the power round. For example, if one party gets anadvantage in a power round, that party may be required to agree to apreviously disclosed adjustment which will be taxed against the ultimateagreement. In other words, in this variant, a party is able to “buy” apower round at a prescribed cost. For example, if the normal paymentamount would be based upon the median of the two values that triggeredthe agreement, a power round bargained payment calculation might involvesome adjustment to less than the median for the seller or more than themedian for the sponsor or buyer. In other words, assume an agreement wastriggered by an offer of $50,000 and a counter-offer of $55,000. In around where the normal payment amount would be the median, the normalpayment amount would be calculated at $52,500. In a power round, thepayment might only be $51,250 to the seller because the seller agreed toa $1,250 fixed value adjustment or a calculated adjustment of 50% of thedifference between the offer and median in order to buy a power round.Similarly, if the opposite party rather than the seller bought the powerround, the payment might be $53,750.

It will be appreciated that, numerous types of adjustments may be madethe important point being, there is be some quid-pro-quo on the part ofthe party buying the power round. Stated another way, this type of powerround poses the question: “Would you give in by <some quantity> to haveanother chance to reach an acceptable agreement?

It will now further be evident that alternative arrangements can combinethe use of a facilitator to prompt for the use of a power round or onlyuse the facilitator for a power round. In one scenario, the facilitatormight be the one who suggests the power round after a series ofunsuccessful rounds. In another instance, the facilitator might suggestchanging the criteria for a power round without suggesting a particularchange. This would allow for a greater possibility for agreement whilenot inviting either party to speculate regarding their opposite party'sproposals. Thus, the intervention by the facilitator would not affectthe neutrality of the system. In yet another instance, the facilitatorcould intervene immediately upon a power round being “bought” to, forexample, provide a statement derived from the tabulated data from prioragreements.

By way of example, a seller buys a power round in return for a $300decrease in bargained payment. In this power round, the offer from thelast round will be compared against a new counter-offer. The last offerwas $10,000, the last counter-offer was $11,800, so the difference is$1,800. Assume that, in order to reach agreement, the offer andcounter-offer must be within $1,200. The facilitator intervenes with afactual statement, derived from the tabulated data, that: “Over 75% ofsimilar transactions to yours have completed for between $8,500 and$11,000 in this jurisdiction” or “Your last offer/counter-offer was offby more than 15% from the average agreement paid on similar transactionsin your jurisdiction.” Having received one of these prompts, the sellerdrops the counter-offer to $11,000 and the transaction reach agreements.In this example, the payment is normally calculated as the median of theoffer and counter-offer which satisfied the criteria. Since theagreement resulted from a $10,000 offer and a $11,000 counter-offer, themedian is $10,500. However, since the agreement resulted from a powerround bought by the seller for a $300 reduction, the bargained paymentwould be reduced by $300 to $10,200.

Although in the basic arrangement, the agreement criteria may alsodiffer among rounds, in some instances it is desirable to enforce amandatory tier structure, which changes the criteria applied, based uponthe counter-offer or offer amount.

For example, the system can be set up so that for a counter-offer oroffer below $10,000, the agreement criteria may be one or both of 30% or$2,500. If either the offer or counter-offer equals or goes over$10,000, the criteria changes to 30% or $5,000. If either the offer orcounter-offer equals or exceeds $25,000 the criteria may change to oneor both of 35% or $8,000. Of course, the specific cut-off point, rangewithin which a criteria applies, or the particular percentage and/ordifferential amount used within a range may vary from system to systemor bargaining transaction to bargaining transaction. Moreover, in someinstances it may be desirable to allow one or more parties to specifythe particulars for one or more of the above.

Depending upon the implementation, it is possible for a particularcounter-offer to fall within one range and an offer to fall in anotherrange. In that transaction it is preferable to require that thedifferential between either a) max exposure and minimum gain satisfy thebroadest criteria, or b) actual differential between offer andcounter-offer satisfy the broadest criteria. Alternatively, prioritizingthe usage of exposure/gain versus offer/counter-offer, prioritizing onecriteria over another, or requiring satisfaction of both criteria can beemployed.

In some instances, particularly when the agreement amount is calculatedto be the median, usage of a tiered arrangement can result in anagreement amount being higher than a maximum exposure or, depending uponthe other options employed go below the minimum gain.

An example of such a scenario is shown in Table 2.

TABLE 2 Submission Criteria Specifics $10,000 “A” 30% or $2,500 $10,000“B” 30% or $4,000 $85,000 “C” 35% or $10,000 Counter- Round Offer offerCriteria Exposure/Gain Result 1 $6,000 A $6,900 No Agreement $13,000 B$11,050 No Agreement 2 $8,000 A $9,200 Agreement $12,000 B $10,200Agreement

In the above scenario, criteria A applied in both rounds for both offersbecause they never exceeded $10,000. Similarly, criteria B applied inboth rounds for the counter-offers because they both were greater than$10,000. There was no agreement in round 1 because neither the actualoffer and counter-offer nor the exposure/gain met the specifiedcriteria.

In round 2, an agreement was reached because the $4,000 differentialcriteria was met by the offer and counter-offer and both the A and Bcriteria were satisfied by the exposure/gain differential.

Since the exposure/gain governs the maximum to be paid or minimum to bereceived, using the median of the $8,000 offer and $12,000 counter-offerwould result in a payment of $10,000. However, since the maximumexposure based upon the $8,000 offer is $9,200, the payment amount willbe set equal to that exposure rather than the median. In the reversetransaction, the payment amount would be no less than the minimum gain.

As a further alternative with the tiered arrangement, if the maximumexposure and minimum gain are equal, that condition could be used as afurther or alternative agreement criteria. Depending upon theimplementation a match between minimum gain amount and maximum exposurecould be set automatically trigger an agreement and override any otherspecified criteria. In the transaction of a match between exposure andgain, that value would also override the payment amount calculation.

As described herein, sponsors and agents may maintain an account withthe provider of the bargaining system if they expect to submittransactions for bargaining with some regularity. However, it is wellknown agents can take high commissions for bargained transactions aswell as fees, expenses and/or disbursements. Advantageously, since thesystem is directly accessible to non-agents on-line, for example, viathe internet or telephone, bargaining is directly available to theindividual without the normal risks or problems which can arise from aperson acting as their own agent. As a result, sellers and oppositeparties may each benefit in one or more of the following ways.

There are four potential buyer benefits which can specifically resultfrom a buyer directly initiating entry of their transaction forautomated bargaining in the first instance. First, since the system doesnot deal with personalities or sales tactics, only the bottom line, abuyer need not be sophisticated, knowledgeable in sales tactics or acapable negotiator in order to obtain an acceptable agreement. Second,the buyer is not subject to a commission or other costs, although theymight be charged some “engagement fee” as evidence of good faith or todiscourage the submission of insincere transactions. In keeping with theon-line implementation aspect, the engagement fee will likely bechargeable to a credit card number submitted by the directly engagingparty. Alternatively or additionally, the engagement fee could bereturnable if an agreement is reached, for example, if a sponsor agreesto pay a fixed fee if the transaction is negotiated using the system oran agreement is reached using the system. Third, the transaction may beresolved much faster than would be the transaction through conventionalbargaining routes since the buyer has greater control over thebargaining since they present the counter-offers rather than authorizingan agent to reach agreement for no less than a specified amount.Finally, in some instances, a seller may be unaware of the potentialvalue of their transaction and thus submit counter-offers, leading toagreement, well below what the buyer would pay thorough conventionalbargaining channels.

There are also at least four potential benefits when a seller initiatesthe automated bargaining process for a given transaction. First, as withbuyers, since the system does not deal with personalities or salestactics, only the bottom line, a seller need not be sophisticated,knowledgeable in sales tactics or a capable negotiator in order toobtain an acceptable agreement. Secondly, in some instances, a buyer mayalso be unaware of the potential value of their transaction and thussubmit counter-offers, leading to agreement, well above what the sellercould have received thorough conventional bargaining channels. Further,since a seller can engage the system directly, rather than through anagent, the prospect of a quick agreement goes up because delays due tobacklogs or inattentiveness of agents to smaller transactions in favorof larger ones are eliminated. Finally, as will be discussed in greaterdetail below, use of the system may result in the seller receiving theirpayment faster and/or more conveniently.

Parties can be attracted to the system using conventional print, radioand television media, word of mouth, links on websites, partnershipswith portals or web based companies, and/or through affinity programarrangements.

For example, airline companies may offer incentives in the form ofdiscounts on tickets to buyers who directly engage the system.Alternatively, affinity programs can be arranged with entities such asairlines or credit card companies so that, if an agreement is reached,the seller will receive frequent flyer mileage or a debit card for theamount of the agreement. Other suitable partnerships and affinityarrangements can be set up, for example, with entities in the travel,investment, banking, automobile, publishing, housing or big ticket itembusinesses. Depending upon the particular circumstance a payment betweenbargaining system provider and the affinity program partner may beinvolved.

Another optional variant provides a further incentive to a party toinitiate entry of a transaction for automated bargaining. In thisvariant, if initial entry of a transaction is a result of a directcontact, the party submitting the transaction is identified as aninitiator. The system logs that fact for later use if an agreement isreached. The rounds proceed according to the particular implementationused. If an agreement is reached in a particular round however, insteadof calculating an agreement amount according to the normal formula, atransaction bargaining payment using a different formula is used whichfavors the initiator or alternatively a windfall amount adjustment ismade to the normal payment amount which would normally be used whenthere was no “initiator”. An example of a no “initiator” instance iswhen the transaction is first submitted by an agent who has an accountwith the system.

Depending upon the implementation, it may be desirable to require thebuyer to “escrow” proceeds such that if an agreement is reached, therisk of post-agreement default is reduced. One way this can beaccomplished, for small matters, is by putting through a charge in aspecified escrow amount on their charge/credit or debit card. Anotherway to accomplish this purpose is to require the person to transferfunds from an account they hold into an escrow account maintainedexpressly for this purpose.

In order to reasonably assess the amount necessary for escrow, thesystem can utilize the transaction information provided to identifysimilar transactions where agreements have been reached and, using thatinformation, calculate an estimation of the required escrow amountsufficient to meet an agreement, if reached. The system is alsopreferably set up to credit any overage amount back to the buyer'scredit card or account if the agreement figure reached is less than theescrow.

By way of example, a seller seeking to sell an antique sees an articleon a consumer oriented website about automated transaction bargaining.This causes the seller to go to the identified website which acts as anInternet interface to an automated bargaining system. The seller submitsthe transaction to the system and is charged an engagement fee of $75.Since the seller directly contacted the system and the opposite party'sagent has not previously submitted this particular transaction to thesystem, the seller is flagged in the system as an initiator. At sometime thereafter, the insurer agrees to also use the system for thattransaction. The parties agree to a number of rounds and an agreementcriteria, submit their respective values and the transaction reachagreements as a result of the analysis in the second round. The systemis set up so that a normal payment amount would be the median of thevalue submitted by the opposite parties. However, as part of thecalculation function, the system identifies that the initiator flag isset for the seller. As a result, the payment is calculated differentlyso as to provide a windfall benefit to the seller. For example, theseller may receive the offer amount, an amount specified by a newformula, some percent in excess of the median amount, a fixed amountbonus, or the median might be used in place of the lower of the offer orcounter-offer in the particular formula, so as to provide a higherpayment to the seller relative to what the seller could have obtained inthe normal transaction.

In a similar vein, if two parties to a transaction are both individualsand the opposite party is the initiator, the “windfall” would be in theform of a reduced payment amount relative to a normal payment amount.

In still other implementations, the “windfall” may only be invoked ifthere is an initiator and the counter-offer and offer have crossed orpass each other, i.e. in one round the offer is less than thecounter-offer and in the next round the offer is more than thecounter-offer. In such a situation, the simplest windfall benefit to setthe bargained payment to the initiator seller equal to the full offeredamount rather than the calculated normal payment amount. Conversely, thesimplest windfall for the initiator opposite party is to set the paymentthey will make equal to the counter-offer.

It will be recognized that the specific windfall adjustment will dependupon the particular implementation used. Accordingly, the importantaspect is that the system keeps track of whether a particular party isan initiator and there is some benefit which can accrue to the initiatorwhen an agreement is reached.

A further advantage flowing, in part, from the on-line nature of thesystem is the ability to automatically provide immediate payment to aseller or initiate an immediate transfer of the bargained payment orvalue when an agreement is reached. The system FIG. 7 is a simplifiedsystem variant which includes an interface 72 to effectuate payment tothe seller automatically. For example, the interface 72 may be to apayment card account system such that if an agreement is reached, andthe seller is a registered cardholder the seller'scredit/debit/charge/entertainment card is automatically credited withthe agreement amount. Similarly, if the seller has a smart card, storedvalue card, online creditable purse or module, or other on-lineaccessible way for the recipient to automatically (and preferablydirectly) receive the transfer, the system may be configured toautomatically credit it with the agreement amount. Given the numerousways known to transfer or receive value on-line and the rate of growthin new ways to do so, it will be appreciated that the basic principle isthe automatic provision or transfer of value, not the particular scrip,protocol or device used to do so.

Alternatively, the seller may provide the system with an account numberinto which a wire transfer of the funds may be automaticallytransferred.

In some instances, the interface is merely a pre-configured vehicle forcommunicating with an authority in order to inform the authority that atransfer is to be made. In this manner suitable arrangements may be madeso that the system can convert the agreement into a non-monetarypayment-in-kind or transfer. For example, through an arrangement with anairline frequent flyer program, or other program offering “points”, theagreement can be converted into the appropriate amount of miles orpoints. Alternatively, the agreement may involve a non-monetaryagreement figure which can automatically initiate a transfer of stocks,bonds, commodities, precious metals, gems, etc., lodged with an escrowagent. In such transactions, the value provided by the opposite partymust be at least equal to the highest offer they will present. In theevent of an agreement, the appropriate amount is calculated as theagreement figure and automatically transferred to the seller. Forexample, in the transaction of stocks, the shares will be automaticallyregistered in the name of the seller. In the transaction of preciousmetals, an account will be automatically opened in the seller's name anda suitable amount will automatically be credited to that account. Itwill be recognized that, consistent with the description herein,automated bargaining would be extensible to apply to otherpayment-in-kind situations in a straightforward manner.

It may also be desirable to implement the system such that, in responseto an agreement, an automatic transfer of title or an ownership interestin something is initiated, for example in the case where the transactionis for real property and the payment may be made by transfer of title inthe property from one to the other party. In such a transaction,suitable documents authorizing the transfer will be executed but notfiled. If an agreement is reached, the system will automatically notifythe appropriate entities and provide the necessary documents toeffectuate the transfer with a minimum of seller involvement.

Additionally variants may initiate issuance of some insurance product,such as an annuity or a fully paid up insurance policy in the agreementamount.

One possible drawback to a system which allows a seller to directlyengage the system is the seller's potential fear that, even if anagreement is reached, agent or attorney involvement may be required inorder to consummate the agreement. Advantageously, the system may beoptionally constructed to address that concern. In particular, thesystem may be constructed to automatically generate agreement documentswhen an agreement is reached. As described above, when the partiesengage the system one or more of the parties provide transactionspecific information. The system contains a number of templates whichcan be used to generate agreement documents appropriate for thetransaction. For example, an agreement and/or release can be generatedby extracting the appropriate information provided for the transactionand incorporating it into the template. Similarly, if sufficientinformation is provided for a transaction currently pending in a court,the system can use a suitable template to generate a stipulation and/ororder of dismissal with prejudice, in accordance with the requirementsof the particular jurisdiction. Once generated, the document can beaccessed in a form conducive to printing and immediate execution or in atext format which allows further additions and/or modifications to bemade to conform to local rules or custom. In the broadest sense, theon-line document feature can be likened to an having an automated clerkmake a trip to the local stationary store for the appropriate legal formand type in the appropriate information. Alternatively, particularjurisdictions may restrict the form and type of document provided. As aresult, the system is preferably constructed so as to take into accountany such limits and restrictions within that jurisdiction and provideall appropriate disclaimers in that regard.

Multiparty Aggregation Options

Many multiparty bargains can be directly handled as a group of two partybargains as set forth above. However, in some transactions, particularlywhen the transaction involves a single entity against a group ofentities for a transaction, aggregation of the group's individual offersor counter-offers can simplify processing.

Depending upon the particular system, the aggregation can be fully orpartly blind to some or all of the parties. For example, if a seller hasa transaction against three separate parties (collectively “the group”),the group can be linked such that the system will still acceptindividual submissions from each. However, once received, individualsubmissions from each member of the group will be added to correspondingsubmissions of the others in the group to form one or more sets ofaggregate values. The system is “fully blind” because the individualmembers of the group are not informed that the aggregation is beingperformed. An aggregate value is used in the system as if it was anoffer or counter-offer submitted by a single entity. In this system, an“AggregateValues” module can be created which sums individual valuesfrom different entities sharing a common opposite party for atransaction. The system will compare the aggregate value against anopposing offer or counter-offer as described above. In other words, onceaggregated, the bargaining can proceed as if it was a two partybargaining—because from the system perspective at that point, it is.

It is important to note that, as with the two party bargaining, valuessubmitted by all members of the group are not disclosed to theiropposite party. Similarly, the system does not disclose the oppositeparty's submission to any member of the group. Depending upon theparticular system configuration, the submissions from individual membersof the group may not be disclosed to any other member of the group.

In the transaction of a fully blind aggregation arrangement, individualsubmissions are not revealed to anyone other than the party making thatsubmission.

An example of a fully blind bargaining is shown in Table 3

TABLE 3 Reach agreement if (aggregate)offer is at least 75% ofcounter-offer Fully Blind (i.e. Party 1, 2 & 3 and seller do not knowoffers are combined. ROUND 1 EXAMPLE 1: Buyer (s) Seller Party 1 Offer$10,000 Party 2 Offer $15,000 Party 3 Offer $35,000 Total $60,000Counter-offer = $65,000 Transaction reach agreements for $62,500 Party 1contributes $10,416.67 (10,000/62,500 × $62,500) Party 2 contributes$15,625.00 (15,000/62,500 × $62,500) Party 3 contributes $36,458.33(35,000/62,500 × $62,500) EXAMPLE 2: Buyer Sellers Party 1 Counter-$25,000 offer Party 2 Counter- $18,000 offer Party 3 Counter- $35,000offer Offer = $70,000 Total $78,000   Transaction reach agreements for$74,000 Party 1 receives $23,718 Party 2 receives $17,077 Party 3receives $33,205

A partially blind arrangement allows the group access to each othersubmissions. To prevent escalation in submissions by one individualbased upon the submission of another on the group, it is desirable toonly allow an individual access to the submissions of others in thegroup after all the individual values have been submitted and the valueshave been locked against withdrawal or change.

An example of this type of partially blind bargaining is shown in table4:

TABLE 4 Reach agreement if counter-offer and offer differ by less than$2,500 Partially Blind (i.e. Party 1, 2 & 3 know each others offersafter all submitted) ROUND 1 Buyer (s) Seller Party 1 Offer  $5,000Party 2 Offer $12,000 Party 3 Offer  $9,000 Party 4 Offer $11,500 Total$37,500 Counter-offer = $50,000 NO AGREEMENT ROUND 2 Buyer (s) SellerParty 1 Offer $10,000 Party 2 Offer $15,000 Party 3 Offer $10,000 Party3 Offer $13,500 Total $48,500 Counter-offer = $45,000 Transaction reachagreements for counter-offer amount of $45,000 Party 1 contributes$9,278.35 Party 2 contributes $13,917.53 Party 3 contributes $9,278.35Party 4 contributes $12,525.77

Another partially blind arrangement allows the group to fullycollaborate on a collective submission. In this transaction, theopposite party is informed that the offer or counter-offer is beingsubmitted on behalf of party 1, party 2, etc. The opposite party thenhas the option of accepting or declining. If the opposite party accepts,and an agreement is reached, the transaction will be completed for allparties in the group and their opposite party.

An example of this type of multiparty bargaining is shown in table 5.

TABLE 5 Reach agreement if (aggregate)offer is at least 75% ofcounter-offer Partially Blind (i.e. Party A, B & D collectively submitoffers as single values and seller is informed, “You have a transactionagainst Entities A, B, C & D. Offers are being submitted by Entity A onbehalf of Entities A, B & D. Entity C declines to participate, if anagreement is reached you may be able to independently pursue yourtransaction against Entity C.” Round Aggregate Offer Seller'scounter-offer Result 1 $100,000 $295,000 No Agreement 2 $110,000$230,000 No Agreement 3 $120,000 $160,000 Reach agreement for $140,000 4$128,000 $140,000

Entities A, B and D can then work out among themselves theapportionment, specify an apportionment so that the system willcalculate an amount owing for each, or apportion the amount equallyamong all participants.

In still another variant, once presented with the list of parties makingup the group, the opposite party has the option of declining tonegotiate with the group, but designating some members of the group withwhom they will negotiate as a group. In this manner, a seller gets theability to “opt out” one or more particular buyers, so as to attempt tobargain individually with them, and a buyer gets to opt out one or moresellers, to prevent one or more individuals, for example, those with ahistory of failing to provide the bargained for item.

The aggregations may also be independently performed on both sides of atransaction. Thus, a group may submit offers for comparison againstanother group's counter-offers. Depending upon the particularimplementation, the aggregation arrangement on one side of thetransaction need not be the same as the aggregation performed on theother side of the transaction. In other words, offers may be submittedpartially blind for comparison against counter-offers aggregated in afully blind arrangement.

In any transaction, if an agreement is reached, if the group whosesubmissions were aggregated will pay on the transaction, the paymentwill preferably be on a pro-rata proportional share. Alternatively, insome implementations, the members of the group can specify a paymentallocation other than on a pro-rata basis.

If the group is made up of individual parties who will receive payment,depending upon the particular system, the parties will each receivetheir respective counter-offers, rather than some median. Alternatively,additional modules can be created which perform more complexapportionment or allocation of payments to sellers.

Additional Options

Since the internet is a globally accessible media, particularembodiments may include a “ConvertEquateLocalCurrency” module created toallow opposite parties to submit offers or counter-offers in their localcurrency for comparison, even if the offers are submitted in onecurrency and the counter-offers in another. In this manner, each partycan deal with a currency with which they are comfortable, thereby makingthe bargaining even more user friendly. Where disparate currencies areused, to analyze the offers and counter-offers the system will convertthe all the currencies specified to a common currency, which may or maynot be the same currency as the offers and counter-offers, forcomparison. By way of example, if the offers were submitted in JapaneseYen and counter-offers submitted in Italian Lira, the system might useYen, Lira, or some third currency, for example U.S. Dollars, Euros, oreven Thai Bhat, depending upon the particular implementation.

In a similar vein, an arrangement may be made with a currency exchangeentity so that, if an agreement is reached, the seller can be paid inthe currency of choice, irrespective of the currency the opposite partyused to submit offers. For example, a Greek national submitting offersor counter-offers in U.S. dollars may specify automatic payment bycrediting their Athens bank account in Drachmae.

Other optional features include a “StructurePayment” module which willcalculate a structured payment from the agreement amount in accordancewith specific guidelines submitted buy a party. In this manner,spendthrift sellers can protect themselves by specifying that thepayment not be provided as a lump sum, but rather incrementally overtime. Coupled with one of the above payment options, the agreement couldadvantageously make monthly transfers to a stored value module, a creditcard, a bank or brokerage account, quarterly payments to an insurancepolicy, or such other arrangements as the system provider can arrange.

Other optional features include the use of different types ofcommunications links (e.g. optical cables or wireless connections);distributed databases; state machines; combinations of secure andnon-secure servers; distributed processing; or implementing certainoptions such as indicators or particular functions in hardware vs. insoftware and vice versa. Similarly, the principles may be implementedusing different types of storage such as tape, solid state, optical,magneto-optical, etc., instead of, or in addition to those describedherein.

It should be understood that the above description is onlyrepresentative of illustrative embodiments. For the convenience of thereader, the above description has focused on a representative sample ofall possible embodiments, a sample that teaches the principles of theinvention. The description has not attempted to exhaustively enumerateall possible variations or even combinations of those variationsdescribed. That embodiments may not have been presented for a specificportion of the invention, or that further undescribed embodiments may beavailable for a portion, is not to be considered a disclaimer of thoseembodiments. One of ordinary skill will appreciate that many of thoseundescribed embodiments, involve differences in technology rather thandifferences in the application of the principles of the invention. Itwill be recognized that, based upon the description herein, most of theprinciples of the invention will be transferable to other specifictechnology for implementation purposes. This is particularly thetransaction when the technology differences involve different specifichardware and/or software. Accordingly, the invention is not intended tobe limited to less than the scope set forth in the followingtransactions and equivalents.

1. A computerized system capable of multiple rounds for automated bargaining to achieve a binding bargained payment for a transaction comprising: at least one processing device; processor accessible storage; and a computer executable program, an input capable of receiving data as input signals wherein the input signals comprise one or more offers for sale from at least one first party and one or more offers to purchase from at least one second party; an input for inputting at least one predetermined criterion into the system against which the parties offer for sale and offer to purchase are compared on a round by round basis to determine if binding bargained payment has been achieved; the at least one processing device operable to, when executing the program: analyze said data and compare each offer for sale and each offer to purchase in a round by round manner beginning with the first round if the round offers for sale and purchase satisfy the predetermined criterion; notify both parties that the comparison analysis has occurred and either has produced an agreement on a binding bargain payment that is calculated as a function of at least one of the offers in the first round or it indicates that no agreement was produced in that round; when no binding bargained agreement has been produced in the first round then said system is configured to compares a second offer from each party said second offers being transmitted by the input signals to said system; analyzes the next round of offers for sale and purchase by comparing those offers to determine if they satisfy the predetermined criterion for that round; notify the parties that the comparison analysis has produced a binding bargained payment calculated as a function of at least one of the offers for that round or that it has not produced an agreement: the computerized system is configured so that: (a) the processing device is configured such that the at least one predetermined criterion inputted into the system can change from one round to another round and said processing device which analyzes the data compares the offers of the parties against the criterion in a round by round manner; and (b) during a given round the system does not given any indication of the amount of any offer from one party for that round to the other party.
 2. A system according to claim 1 wherein for at least one of the rounds, the processing device is capable of being configured such that the predetermined criterion is a specified percentage difference between the offers in that round.
 3. A system according to claim 2 wherein the processing device is configured to select a specific percentage difference amount.
 4. A system according to claim 2 wherein the percentage difference is from about 5% to about 50%.
 5. A system according to claim 2 wherein the processing device is configured to use the same percentage difference for one or more of the rounds.
 6. A system according to claim 1 wherein for at least one of the rounds, the processing device is operable to determine whether the offers satisfy the criterion for that round by determining whether the offers differ from one another by a specified amount or percentage.
 7. A system according to claim 6 wherein the processing device is controllable to select a specified amount.
 8. A system according to claim 6 wherein the processing device is controllable to use the same specified amount for one or more than one round.
 9. A system according to claim 1 wherein for at least one round, the processing device is operable: a) to determine whether the offers satisfy the criterion for the round, by multiplying one of the offers by a predetermined factor to produce a result; b) to compare that result with the offer of a party on the opposite side of the transaction; and c) to determine whether the outcome of the comparison falls within a predetermined range.
 10. A system according to claim 9 wherein the processing device is operable to select a predetermined range within which offers need to be to produce a binding bargained payment.
 11. A system according to claim 1 wherein for at least one round, the processing device is operable to calculate a criterion which the offers of the parties must meet to produce a binding bargained payment as a function of at least one of the offers in that round.
 12. A system according to claim 1 configured such that the number of rounds is limited to three.
 13. A system according to claim 1 wherein the processing device is operable to change the predetermined criterion used in one or more of the rounds.
 14. A system according to claim 13 wherein further the processing device is further configured to receive a request from at least one of the parties to change the predetermined criterion for the round and thereafter changes the criterion for that round.
 15. A system according to claim 1 wherein the processing device is configured to change how the binding bargained payment is calculated as a function of at least one of the offers in that round.
 16. A system according to claim 1 further comprising a login procedure whereby only parties with proper authentication data to use the system can log in.
 17. A system according to claim 16 wherein the processing device is configured to provide a response to the parties as to whether or not the offers satisfy the criterion only upon entry of authentication data.
 18. A system according to claim 1 which is configured to communicate with at least one of the first and second parties through a network.
 19. A system according to claim 18 linked to the Internet to communicate with said first and second parties via the Internet.
 20. A system according to claim 1 wherein the offers are monetary.
 21. A system according to claim 20 wherein the monetary offers are in different currencies, and the system further includes a currency converter to convert the monetary offers into a common currency in order to compare the offers thereof.
 22. A system according to claim 1 comprising: the processing device being configured to send one or more predetermined messages to the parties when the outcome of the comparison of offers fails to satisfy the predetermined criterion but is within a predetermined acceptance limit.
 23. A system according to claim 22 which comprising: the processing device being configured for sending a facilitating message.
 24. A system according to claim 1 wherein the system is configured to allow at least one party to submit as input signals a plurality: of offers prior to the completion of the first round.
 25. A system according to claim 1 wherein the processing device which receives data is configured to accept, before the completion of any given round, a plurality of offers by at least one party, such that one such offer is compared by the processing device in the present round and each such other offers are compared by the processing device in sequential rounds.
 26. A system according to claim 1 which further comprises: an input signal from at least one party to the transaction to request a power round, if no binding bargained agreement is reached after an agreed upon number of rounds has failed to generate such agreement.
 27. A system according to claim 26 wherein the power round criterion is the same criterion used in one of the preceding rounds.
 28. A system according to claim 26 wherein the power round criterion is different from the criterion of one or more of the preceding rounds.
 29. A system according to claim 26 wherein the power round is activated by the purchase of the power round.
 30. A system according to claim 26 wherein the processor is operable to change how the binding bargained payment is calculated as a function of at least one of the offers in a given round.
 31. A system according to claim 1 which further comprises: the processing device being configured to send an inquiry to the parties inquiring whether one or more of the parties wants to engage in a power round and if an affirmative answer is received by the device the device is configured to apply either the same or a different criterion to the power round. 